Preamble

The House met at a Quarter past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PUBLIC PETITIONS

First Report from the Committee on Public Petitions brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Re-employed Officers (Pensions)

Captain Swingler: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many re- employed officers serving on VE-Day were in receipt of other ranks pensions in respect of previous service.

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. A. V. Alexander): I regret that the exact figure is not available, but a rough estimate of the number of those who, having previously been pensioned as ratings were serving as commissioned or warrant officers on VE-Day, is 1,500.

W.R.N.S. (Strength)

Mr. McKie: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the present strength of the W.R.N.S.

Mr. Alexander: The strength of the W.R.N.S. at the end of November was approximately 55,000.

Mr. McKie: Is the First Lord satisfied that demobilisation is proceeding at a proper rate, in regard to these people?

Mr. Alexander: I should say, from the figures, that they are moving more rapidly than any other branch of His Majesty's Service. More than 20,000 of this comparatively small number of people have gone, and they are going very rapidly.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: What will the ultimate strength of the W.R.N.S. be?

Mr. Alexander: I could not say at this stage.

Malta (Ratings' Wives)

Commander Maitland: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many wives of naval ratings have joined their husbands in Malta since permission to travel to Malta was granted.

Mr. Alexander: No wives of naval ratings have so far arrived in Malta from this country.

Commander Maitland: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how long the wife of a naval rating has to wait after her application for a passage to Malta; and what is the minimum fare for a single person.

Mr. Alexander: I understand that the period will vary according to the demand and the availability of shipping space, but I am afraid that it will be at least six months. The answer to the second part of the Question is £16.

Commander Maitland: Arising out of the First Lord's answer to both those Questions, may I ask whether they do not make rather nonsense of the somewhat affable answer which I received from the Financial Secretary on 10th December, in which the Minister indicated that it was a practical proposition for wives to join their husbands in Malta?

Mr. Alexander: I do not think it makes nonsense of it at all. I said that the first thing to be done was to take a decision on the principle. The decision has been against this being done in wartime. We are doing our best to get on to a peace time level as soon as possible. I must, however, be frank with my hon. and gallant Friend and say that shipping space will delay us.

Commander Maitland: As it is possible for wives to join their husbands in Malta, will the First Lord do his very best to see that the wives get out there without delay?

Mr. Alexander: Certainly, Sir.

Indefinite Release

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many officers and men are on indefinite release.

Mr. Alexander: On 30th November, the latest date for which figures are available, the number was 18,700.

Major Legge-Bourke: How many of them were put on indefinite release during the war?

Mr. Alexander: I should have to have notice of that question, but I would point out that the figure includes all the compassionate releases as well as those who are for the time being awaiting appointments.

Major Legge-Bourke: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is satisfied that the ones who were released during the war are fully aware of their rights to claim postwar credits and gratuities at once?

Mr. Alexander: So far as I know they have all had their chance of seeing these orders, but if the hon. and gallant Member has any case in mind I shall be glad to look into it.

Telecommunications Research and Development

Mr. Cobb: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many physicists and engineers of B.Sc. standard or better employed by his Department, were engaged on telecommunications research and development, respectively, for 12 months ended June 1937 and 1945, respectively.

Mr. Alexander: The overall numbers employed during the two periods mentioned were 55 and 400 respectively. The numbers engaged on research and on development respectively vary continually according to requirements. I regret, therefore, that it is not practicable to assess the numbers thus engaged.

Mr. Cobb: Can the First Lord say how much of the resulting work has been made available to the Post Office?

Mr. Alexander: If my hon. Friend wants me to get on to that aspect of the matter I must have notice.

Royal Hospital School, Holbrook

Commander Pursey: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the date of the next entry, and for applications, into the Royal Hospital School, Holbrook; and whether, in view of the modified physical and educational standards, the 70 candidates rejected on the last occasion will be eligible for a further attempt and will be so informed.

Mr. Alexander: Preliminary examinations of candidates for the next entry to the Royal Hospital School have already taken place, and the final examination will be held at the School on 8th January, 1946. A further examination will probably be held in May, 1946, to which some of the 70 candidates who failed on the last occasion will be invited.

Commander Pursey: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of boys who can be accommodated at the Royal Hospital School, Holbrook; the number now borne; and, as A.R.P. reasons no longer restrict the number, when it is intended to fill the school to capacity, observing the increase in the number of orphans who are eligible for entry because their fathers served in the R.N. or Mercantile Marine and lost their lives in the late war.

Mr. Alexander: The school was planned to hold as a maximum 860 boys, involving a total of 80 boys in each hostel, other than the new entry hostel. The Standing Advisory Committee recommend that this maximum should not be entered unless certain structural alterations, designed to secure better supervision can be made. Meanwhile, the numbers in the School are expected gradually to increase, and all eligible candidates are being accepted. The average number borne during the last three months is 521.

Commander Pursey: As there is a large amount of accommodation available and a full staff, and there are a large number of orphans who ought to be accommodated, will my right hon. Friend do his best to remove the bottleneck and to ensure that as many boys as fall within the category of "orphan" are enrolled at the next entrance?

Mr. Alexander: I am not aware that there is a bottleneck. The school is open for applications from all people of this kind, and, as I have said in my first answer, all eligible candidates are being accepted. If my hon. and gallant Friend has any case which seems to show that there is a hitch and he will let me have the details, I will look into it.

Prize Money (Proposed Changes)

Vice-Admiral Taylor: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will now make a statement with regard to prize money.

Mr. Willis: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if it is intended that prize money shall be paid to naval personnel in respect of prizes taken during the war, as has formerly been the practice.

Mr. Alexander:: It has been decided that prize money in respect of the proceeds derived from the sale of captured enemy merchant ships and cargoes which has traditionally been granted to the Navy, shall again be granted, but it is the intention that a proportion of the proceeds should on this occasion be allocated for the benefit of Air Force personnel. It has been decided, however, that a grant of prize bounty shall not be made. In previous wars, this grant has been paid to the officers and crews of such of His Majesty's ships as were actually present at the taking or destroying of any enemy warships, but in the Government's view such a grant is inappropriate under modern conditions of war, and should be regarded as obsolete.
The Dominions Governments and the Government of India have concurred in principle in these decisions. So far as the United Kingdom Forces are concerned, however, it is the Government's intention that this shall be the last occasion on which prize money will be paid.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Arising out of that very satisfactory answer, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware of the great satisfaction that the answer will give, not only to His Majesty's Forces here and those of the Dominions, but to the R.A.F.? May I further congratulate him on being successful in being able to maintain this ancient custom of giving prize money?

Mr. Willis: Will my right hon. Friend consider paying this money on a flat rate basis?

Mr. Alexander: That is what I might call a leading question. I do not think I can accept that proposition; but I do intend a variation of the payment among the ranks from that which took place in the last war and that the gap shall be very largely closed. A very different basis of distribution will be adopted from that of the last war.

Captain Marsden: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the gradation of the payment of prize money has been in force for a very long time? Can

he say how soon information of the new system will be made available to the Navy?

Mr. Alexander: The decision, you mean?

Captain Marsden: The proportion in which the money will be shared and allocated.

Mr. Alexander: We will make the information available as early as possible. I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that most of this prize money is still the subject of long litigation in the courts. There is no great hurry, except to let people know what is likely to happen.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the First Lord of the Admiralty give serious consideration again to the question just put to him by my hon. Friend, that the prize money should be paid on a flat rate?

Mr. Alexander: At this moment, I have nothing to add to the answer which 1 have given to the hon. Member.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Do we understand there will be no question of differentiation?

H.M.S. "Javelin" (Mutiny)

Mr. Driberg: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he now has any information about the recent mutiny in H.M.S. "Javelin."

Mr. Alexander: The answer is rather long, so I hope the House will bear with me.

Hon. Members: Read it after Questions.

Mr. Alexander: I would rather read it now, as I have a rather important Press conference later.
In the early morning of 17th September last, a number of ratings in H.M.S. "Javelin '' refused to fall in for work. As a result of this mass disobedience, three courts martial were held in Malta between 5th and 13th November. I have now reviewed the sentences passed on the accused, and am satisfied that they were both just and appropriate.
Seventeen able seamen and one ordinary seaman were charged with mutiny not accompanied by violence, and with wilful disobedience. Two able seamen were acquitted of these charges, but found guilty of absence from their place


of duty. They received a minor punishment of seven days' extra work and drills. The remainder were acquitted of the mutiny charge, but found guilty of wilful disobedience, and received the very lenient sentence of 60 days' detention, which was accompanied by a recommendation to the Commander-in-Chief, since put into effect, that the sentences should be suspended after 30 days. In consequence, these men have already been released.
One leading seaman was charged with taking part in mutiny, and with not using his best endeavours to suppress mutiny. These charges were withdrawn during the course of the trial, but the accused was found guilty of wilful disobedience and absence from his place of duty. In view of his former good record, this rating was sentenced to 60 days' detention, but the sentence was suspended before committal.
The most serious of the charges were those against eight petty officers, who were rightly found guilty of mutiny not accompanied by violence, of wilful disobedience, and absence from their place of duty. These were grave offences on the part of senior ratings, whose duty it was to use their utmost endeavour to suppress indiscipline among their subordinates. Whilst the sentence of one year's imprisonment with dismissal from the Service was not an excessive one for these offences, I have taken into account the former good records of these men, and the mistaken sense of loyalty to another rating which led them to act over-hastily. I have therefore issued instructions that while the sentences of imprisonment are to stand, the petty officers are to be released immediately as an act of grace without dismissal from the Service.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Can the First Lord say whether the eight petty officers in question were active service ratings?

Mr. Alexander: There were some of both.

Mr. Kirkwood: Has the First Lord made inquiries into this mutiny to find out whether it is not someone up above the ordinary officers who is responsible, because it is rare for officers in the British Navy to mutiny, and I want to know whether he has made any investigations?

Mr. Alexander: I have been through every word of the evidence myself, otherwise I would never have agreed to release men who were petty officers and who had been convicted on a charge of mutiny. It is a very grave offence. I have taken the whole of the circumstances, as I have seen them, into account in conjunction with my advisers at the Board of Admiralty, and I think we are now doing justice.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is not the effect of the decision that the petty officers are not being punished at all?

Mr. Alexander: I should have thought that my hon. and gallant Friend, with his great knowledge of the Service, would know that what I have said does not release them from the effects. If a man has been found guilty and sentenced for mutiny, first, he forfeits all his campaign medals and, second, he reverts to the ranks.

NUREMBERG TRIAL

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Attorney-General whether he will consider publishing as a White Paper the evidence gathered from the interrogation of the German Generals, Haller and Keitel, and that produced in the course of the Nuremberg Trial, indicating that Germany was unable at Munich to challenge an Anglo-Franco-Soviet combination, that Hitler had told his General Staff that he would call off the attack on Czechoslovakia if France and Great Britain offered resistance, and that German generals had planned to depose and arrest Hitler if he did go to war.

The Solicitor-General (Major Sir Frank Soskice): The matter is at present sub judice and the question whether a White Paper should be published dealing with particular aspects of the evidence, some of which has not yet been used at the trial, is one which must await the end of the proceedings. In the meantime I must not be taken as agreeing that the effect of the evidence considered as a whole is as indicated in the question. A transcript of the proceedings before the Tribunal from day to day is being made available in the Library and arrangements are now being made for this transcript to be printed.

Mr. Zilliacus: Is it not a fact that the interrogation of General Haller and General Keitel took place several months ago, was not connected with the Nuremberg trials, and that the evidence is publicly available, and if so is it not in fact stated that there was a plot by German generals to overthrow Hitler if he went to war over Munich?

The Solicitor-General: A great deal of evidence is being produced, and will be produced before the tribunal, and it is obviously more satisfactory that the hon. Gentleman should consult the records and make up his own mind as to what exactly was said than that I should give piecemeal opinions as to parts of the evidence.

Earl Winterton: Is it not plain from the hon. and learned Gentleman's answer that there will be no submission to this House in the form of a White Paper of any evidence taken in this case while it is sub judice, and that only after a decision has been reached he will be prepared to answer questions?

The Solicitor-General: I cannot add to what I have said. It is a question which must await the end of the proceedings.

CIVILIAN CLOTHING (DEMOBILISATION CENTRES)

Lieutenant William Shepherd: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware of the practice which is growing up at demobilisation centres of keeping the better variety of civilian clothing under the counter and producing it when a financial reward is considered likely; and what steps he is taking to discourage this malpractice.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Strachey): I have not been able to establish any cases of this kind at the Royal Air Force civilian clothing centres. We should, of course, be glad to examine any particular evidence that is produced. Strict instructions are in force against any such practice.

Lieutenant Shepherd: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this practice is quite widespread, and will he draw the attention of his right hon. Friends at the Admiralty and the War Office to this matter?

Mr. Strachey: Yes, but we should like individual examples on which to act.

Mr. Barton: Will my hon. Friend say whether he has received my letter of 13th December, giving specific evidence of this practice, and if so, what steps he has taken?

Mr. Strachey: That is under discussion now.

Mr. Gallacher: Could not the Minister quite easily overcome this by removing the counter?

Wing-Commander Millington: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when I recently passed through a demobilisation centre I did everything I could, short of acting as an agent provocateur, to find something under the counter, and was signally unsuccessful?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Accidents (Technical Problems)

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the increasing number of air accidents and the public disquiet which has been aroused, he will consider establishing in the R.A.F. a technical department equivalent in status to that of the engineer-in-chief of the R.N.

Mr. Strachey: I should say that the technical efficiency of the Royal Air Force had, in the last six years, proved itself second to none. A comparison with the technical organisation of the Royal Navy which is designed to meet rather different problems might be misleading, or even invidious. But if the hon. and gallant Member considers that the status of the R.A.F. technical officers is inferior to that of their naval colleagues I would remind him that the technical problems of the R.A.F. are the direct concern of both the Air Member for Supply and Organisation and the Controller of Research and Development, who are members of the Air Council. The Council recognise the enormous importance of technical considerations, and the complex problem of this integration in the postwar Royal Air Force is now under searching examination. I am afraid, however, that this is essentially a long-term problem, the solution of which cannot be expected to have any immediate effect on the accident rate.

Mr. Bowles: How many more accidents is the hon. Gentleman going to put up with


in Transport Command before he arranges for some other body to inquire into accidents, other than the Air Ministry itself?

Mr. Strachey: The Air Ministry itself makes the initial inquiry into accidents, but the chief inspector of accidents and his staff, who inquire into all aspects, whether Air Ministry or other, is, if I may use the phrase, a semi-judicial body. There is very ample machinery for inquiry into the cause of accidents.

Mr. Bowles: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is perfectly right in saying that. There has just been another accident in which 18 people were killed When the railway companies have an accident they have an impartial inquiry by Colonel Mount; is there any objection to a similar inquiry being held into air accidents and why should not the result of such inquiries be published?

Mr. Strachey: Most exhaustive inquiries are made into these accidents, but they cannot in the case of a fighting service be of exactly the same character as in a civilian industry. The question of the investigation of accidents is very different from the Question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Bowles: rose —

Mr. Speaker: We have only reached Question No. 15 after nearly 25 minutes.

Re-employed Officers (Pensions)

Captain Swingler: asked the Under secretary of State for Air how many reemployed officers serving on VE-Day were in receipt of other ranks pensions in respect of previous service.

Mr. Strachey:: Sixty, Sir.

Living Accommodation (Vacation)

General Sir George Jeffreys: asked the Under-Secretary of State for All whether he will cause the early vacation of camps on aerodromes which have be come redundant, in order that, when suit ably situated, they may be made available for housing purposes.

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir. But the living accommodation which we give up is, in practice, mostly taken for other Service-men—because it is much more suitable for this purpose than for civilian housing, and the movement of the Servicemen

into our camps makes it possible to release more private property elsewhere. We have offered accommodation in this way at 80 airfields and some or all of it has already been taken up at 60. We have sent R.A.F. ground units, most of which would otherwise be occupying civilian accommodation, into 48 more airfields.

Airfields (Derequisitioning)

Sir G. Jeffreys: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many aerodromes have now become redundant owing to being no longer required for use by the R.A.F. and the U.S.A.F., respectively; what is the reason for the delay in derequisitioning such redundant aerodromes; and whether he will hasten their derequisitioning, both with a view to the restoration of the sites for agricultural use and also to the release of personnel now employed in their care and maintenance.

Mr. Strachey: We are no longer using some 110 airfields. Thirty-five of these have been or are being derequisitioned. We have made all the others available for use as storage depots, prisoner-of-war camps, Service accommodation, and so on. In addition, the Ministry of Agriculture is arranging for as much land as possible to be used for farming both at these airfields, and at some 140 others which we are still using, but not for flying.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Is there any reason why other storage accommodation should not be found and why these aerodromes should not be released? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a great part of the ground at aerodromes is taken up by concrete spaces which cannot be used for agriculture until the ground is derequisitioned and work has been done to clear it?

Mr. Strachey: The use of these aerodromes for storage accommodation usually frees from storage industrial premises which are urgently needed. Of course, the taking up of runways is a very big job.

W.A.A.F. (Strength)

Mr. McKie: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the present strength of the W.A.A.F.

Mr. Strachey: The strength of the Women's Auxiliary Air Force on 12th December was 99,950.

Mr. McKie: Is the hon. Gentleman now in a position to state what it is proposed the ultimate strength of the Service should be?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. Its future is under consideration.

Indefinite Release

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many officers and men are on indefinite release.

Mr. Strachey: There are 909 officers and 10,300 airmen on indefinite release to industry. We have also approved, up to 5th December, 4,932 Class C releases from the Royal Air Force and the Women's Auxiliary Air Force.

Major Legge-Bourke: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the 909 officers and the 10,300 other ranks are fully aware of their entitlement to apply at once for postwar credits and gratuities?

Mr. Strachey: They should be, and this Question and answer may help to make it clear.

Accidents (Trooping Aircraft)

Mr. Ward: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what was his Department's estimate of the cost in casualties when planning the trooping programme; and how does this figure compare with the casualty rate so far experienced.

Mr. Strachey: The trooping programme was planned as an Eastbound operation of war, with the object of taking men to the Far Fast to fight Japan. No estimate of the accidents likely to occur on such an operation was made. Since 1st May 11 accidents have occurred involving casualties on flights in the trooping programme in which 154 passengers and 41 crew have been killed; 22 passengers and five crew were injured.

Mr. Ward: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the time has arrived when the R.A.F. should admit that, owing to very understandable difficulties caused by the demobilisation of some of their most experienced air and ground crews, the air-trooping programme cannot be undertaken at the same rate as was originally supposed to be possible, and is he satisfied that the Minister of War Transport cannot produce any more ships?

Mr. Strachey: We are, of course, deeply concerned with the accidents which have occurred in the trooping programme, and I am sure we should be most grateful for any assistance in the matter.

Mr. Hulbert: Can the Minister say what percentage of casualties to the whole number carried those figures represent?

Mr. Strachey: I would like to have notice of that question.

Mr. Ward: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what is the proportion of foreign crews to British crews employed since the trooping programme began; and what is the proportion of accidents to foreign crews as compared with British crews.

Mr. Strachey: I regret that this information is not readily available, but all aircrews employed on the trooping programme have been trained with the Royal Air Force to the same standards. Up to date, in 11 accidents on troop-carrying flights, nine crews were British and two were foreign.

Mr. Ward: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many trips on specific routes are carried out by pilots of troop-carrying aircraft before being sent on these routes as captains of air craft.

Mr. Strachey: Captains of aircraft in Transport Command, covering the route to India and back, have to do a minimum of two return trips with freight only. Bomber Command captains make one preliminary flight over their section of the trooping route which is direct between Italy and the United Kingdom. Coastal Command captains do three, on routes over the sea.

Mr. Ward: Is the Minister aware that these accidents are doing irreparable damage not only to the R.A.F. but to British aviation as a whole, and is he satisfied that the flying training and discipline of the captains and crews are as good as they should be?

Mr. Strachey: I have no doubt of the skill of the captains and crews. Our concern about the accidents is very great, and as I have told the House already, a most searching inquiry has been undertaken by the Air Staff and remedies are being applied at this very moment.

Mr. John Foster: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many engine failures have been reported to the Director of Accidents from 1st October to 1st December in respect of aircraft engaged in trooping or carrying other passengers.

Mr. Strachey: Thirty-three cases of an engine failure in passenger- or troop-carrying aircraft have so far been established for the months of October and November. The figure is not yet complete, as each case of apparent engine failure is investigated, and this necessarily takes time.

Mr. Foster: Is it the case that a considerable proportion of the failures has been due to the failure of the Merlin engine, and is that being taken into account in the steps now being taken to remedy the situation?

Mr. Strachey: I should require notice of that question.

Mr. Bowles: Is there any objection to the public being told the causes of the accidents?

Mr. Strachey: The circumstances differ in each case.

Mr. Bowles: Why should the public not be told in each case?

Mr. Hulbert: On what date did the Air Ministry appoint a Director of Accidents?

Mr. Strachey: A Directorate of Accidents.

Repatriated Officers, India (Accounts)

Sir John Mellor: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air why, in the case of many commissioned officers repatriated from India in June, their accounts had not "reached England by 1st November.

Mr. Strachey: I am not aware of any such case, but if the hon. Member will send me details about individual officers, I will make inquiries.

Sir J. Mellor: Will the hon. Gentleman be surprised to know that some of these accounts have arrived in this country only since the beginning of this month?

Mr. Strachey: I know there have been delay and difficulty in getting accounts from India.

Personal Cases

Flight-Lieutenant Teeling: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air why an officer, of whose identity he has been informed, who had been serving in Burma and embarked for this country for demobilisation on 3rd October, and is now on his final leave, has received no pay or allowances, including his final leave pay, since the date of his embarkation; and whether he will in future see that officers and men may enjoy their demobilisation leave without financial worry due to inefficiency in the Accounts Department.

Mr. Strachey: Payments for credit to this officer's account were made on 2nd November and 1st December.

Flight-Lieutenant Teeling: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, according to my information, it is only during the last five days that the money has actually been paid into the bank, and will he make sure in future that people receive their allowances during the 56 days, so that they can really have demobilisation leave?

Mr. Strachey: I am afraid there is a conflict as to the facts. I assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that I have been into the matter, and the payments were made on those dates.

Captain Marsden: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in accordance with your Ruling of two days ago that Questions of this nature should have been received at the Table?

Mr. Speaker: It is for the hon. Member putting the Question to decide whether it raises a matter of principle that he wants to put to the Minister.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he is aware that 3060749 Aircraftman F. G. Isaac has been confined to camp for three days on a charge of denying that he had written a letter, published in the "Grantham Journal," knowing this statement to be untrue; and if he will take disciplinary action against those responsible for this breach of the undertaking that there would be no further disciplinary action against this airman and cause suitable amends to be made to him.

Mr. Strachey: When I made my statement last week, A.C.2 Isaac had been awarded three days confined to camp. He


was in sick quarters at the time so the punishment was purely nominal and it does not involve any entry on his Service Conduct Sheet. What I said was that no further disciplinary action would be taken against him. There was no breach of my undertaking. As to the future, Members may like to know that this whole Unit will be disbanded in the immediate future and its members posted to other stations.

Demobilisation

Mr. Vane: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air when he anticipates the release rates for equipment assistants will be approximately level with that of the most favoured trades.

Mr. Strachey: We have now reduced the lag in the rate of release of equipment assistants to four groups. How soon we can bring them level depends upon whether and if so, by how much the general rate of release is speeded up in the New Year.

Mr. Vane: Is it a lag of four groups behind the average rate of release or behind that of the most favoured trades?

Mr. Strachey: The rate of release of most airmen for January is Group 26, with half of Group 27, and it is behind that.

Mr. Lipson: When will there be a corresponding improvement in the Accounts Branch?

Mr. Strachey: There has been.

Squadron-Leader Segal: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air (1) what steps he has taken to prevent the issue of unauthorised pronouncements in official R.A.F. publications to avoid the raising of false hopes about demobilisation among R.A.F. personnel;
(2) upon whose authority the statement was published in the R.A.F. Journal of October, 1945, to the effect that by the end of this year the difference in release as between various trades would probably be greatly reduced, if not eliminated; how far this difference as between various trades has been reduced since October, 1945; and when it is hoped to eliminate it.

Mr. Strachey: The statement in the Royal Air Force Journal was not unauthorised, and in fact the differences in the rate of demobilisation as between trades have been greatly reduced. In

October, when the statement was made, 13.3 per cent. of Royal Air Force releases were delayed; in January the figure will be 5.6 per cent. The reason why the unevenness has not been further reduced is, of course, the successive speed-ups in the general rate of release. The faster you go the harder it is to achieve perfect evenness. In fact, even those most affected by the disparity which continues —six groups for the accounting trades in January—have all had their release speeded up compared with our first estimates for the end of this year. Whether we even out the remaining disparities in the New Year depends on whether or not there is a further speed-up in the rate of general release.

Squadron-Leader Segal: While thanking the Minister for his reply, may I point out that Question No. 44 should have been listed subsequently to Question No. 70? May I ask the Minister what justification there has been for the statement that it is hoped to eliminate this disparity?

Mr. Strachey: It is hoped to eliminate it, and certainly it will be eliminated. The only question is, when?

Mr. Turton: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he will give an assurance that officers in the R.A.F. medical service up to Group 30 will be demobilised under Class A contemporaneously with officers in the R.A.M.C.; and, if not, by what date such releases will be completed.

Mr. Strachey: I regret that I cannot give the assurance asked for since the ratio of doctors in the Army is higher than in the R.A.F. and the numbers in the different age and service groups vary as between the Services. Medical officers in the R.A.F. will be released in Group 25 this month and in Group 26 in January. They are therefore up to the general rate of release.

Azores

Mr. Driberg: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he is aware that nearly 1,500 R.A.F. personnel are or were recently stationed in the Azores, and that the duties in connection with such specialist services as air-sea rescue, staging posts, etc., are carried out by fewer than 500 of these; and how soon these 1,000 redundant or unemployed airmen are to be repatriated.

Mr. Strachey: As my hon. Friend knows, it would not be in accordance with the present policy to give the figures for our forces in particular places overseas. We are steadily bringing down the strength of the Royal Air Force in the Azores. It is part of Coastal Command's contribution to the trooping programme to bring airmen home from the Azores as soon as possible.

Mr. Driberg: Can my hon. Friend say how soon that will be, in view of the fact that the figures for the Azores have now been given on the Order Paper?

Mr. Strachey: I have not confirmed any such figures, but airmen are steadily being brought home from the Azores.

Harrowbeer Airport

. Mr. Medland: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether any decision has yet been made as to the future use of Harrowbeer airport; and, if not, for what reason.

Mr. Strachey: The Royal Air Force is not using Harrowbeer at present. A training centre for the building trade is to be set up there shortly. The final decision for Harrowbeer depends on postwar requirements for civil and Service airfields in the South-West.

Mr. Medland: Can the Minister give consideration to the disposal of this airport to the local authority of Plymouth for civil aviation purposes?

Mr. Strachey: That sounds more like a question which should be addressed to the Minister of Civil Aviation. I think that very possibly they will have important use for the airfield.

Iceland

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many airmen remain in Iceland and for what purpose; and what transport is available for mails, leave, and those due for release.

Mr. Strachey: The great majority of the Royal Air Force who are still in Iceland are doing signals work. It would not be in accordance with the present policy to give the numbers of our forces in particular places overseas. We have already made big reductions in Iceland—in fact one difficulty is that there are no longer enough men to justify regular troopship sailings for Iceland. Meanwhile, we are

providing aircraft to make a weekly journey for mails and men who are due for release.

Sir J. Mellor: As there are only now about four hours of daylight, will the Under-Secretary of State do his utmost to improve the amenities for these men?

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir, but what they mostly require, I think, is to come home, and that, for most of them, will soon happen.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES (PAY AND PENSIONS)

Mr. Eden: asked the Prime Minister whether he is yet in a position to make a statement regarding pay and other conditions in the postwar Forces.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Yes, Sir. The Government have now completed a review of the whole code of pay, allowances and Service pensions for ratings and other ranks, primarily with a view to making suitable arrangements for regular entrants to the postwar Forces. The Government's decisions are embodied in a White Paper which is available in the Vote Office this afternoon. A correspondingly comprehensive review of the codes for officers of all three Services is in progress and the new arrangements for officers will be the subject of a further announcement in due course.

Mr. Eden: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that statement, may I point out that we have not yet seen it, and I understand that it may be that we would like an opportunity of discussing it when we have studied it?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, I am sure that is so. It is a long and very detailed document and I think the right hon. Gentleman will realise that the general principles involved are fairly clear.

Captain Blackburn: While thanking the Prime Minister for the document, may I ask him whether he will give urgent attention to the matter with a view to a further speeding-up of demobilisation by the quickest possible announcement of special terms of service for those willing to take on for a short-term period—for three or five years?

Mr. Speaker: That question does not arise now.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY AND AUSTRIA (POSTAL FACILITIES)

Mr. Benn Levy: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the Allied Control Commission will authorise the resumption of postal communications with Central Europe now that it is officially stated that facilties for a limited civilian air-mail service are practicable.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hynd): I assume that the hon. Member is referring to Germany and Austria. At the end of hostilities there was a complete breakdown of internal services in these countries, including postal services. Strenuous efforts have, however, been made by the Allied Control Authorities to restart postal services for Germany and Austria. Internal services are already in operation. I hope that it will be possible in the case of Austria for postal communications with the outside world to be resumed in the very near future. The arrangements are practically complete. The position in Germany is more difficult and facilities do not yet exist for handling external mails on a large scale. I am afraid, therefore, that it will take somewhat longer before normal postal services between Germany and the outside world can be restarted. The British Authorities in Germany in consultation with those of the Allies arc fully aware of the importance of the matter and are doing what they can to hasten progress.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is the Minister aware of the great hardship imposed on relatives in this country who cannot correspond with their relatives; and will he do everything possible to expedite postal communications?

Mr. Hynd: It is because we are aware of that hardship that we are doing everything possible to speed-up these facilities.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

British Restaurants

Mr. McKie: asked the Minister of Food how many British Restaurants are operating in the United Kingdom; and if it is his intention to continue these restaurants in whole or in part.

The Minister of Food (Sir Benjamin Smith): On 15th September there were

1,450 British Restaurants operating in the United Kingdom. In addition to these there are 42 feeding centres set up by voluntary organisations and 24 school canteens serving meals to the general public. Under the Supplies and Services. (Transitional Powers) Act the temporary powers of local authorities to operate British Restaurants will be continued. The Government are in favour of local authorities being given permanent powers to operate British Restaurants and will when time permits ask Parliament to pass such legislation as may be necessary. With this object in view and in conjunction with the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland I propose in the near future to consult with the representative associations of local authorities.

Sir Frank Sanderson: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether British Restaurants are running at a profit or a loss, and, if at a loss, whether they are subsidised by the Government?

Sir B. Smith: Some are, and some are not, but in the future, the policy will be that each one will have to stand on its own economic footing.

Mr. Gallachcr: If there is any closing down of restaurants will the Minister give first priority to West End hotels?

Wing-Commander Roland Robinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult with the catering industry about this competition with legitimate trade?

Sir B. Smith: I imagine that the catering industry will wish to consult me.

Food Executive Officers (Subsistence Allowances)

Wing-Commander Roland Robinson: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware of the hardship caused to food executive officers and their assistants in the provinces, who are not allowed to claim subsistence allowances unless they are away from their offices for at least 10 hours; that, unlike their opposite numbers in the London area, most of these officers would normally eat their mid-day meal at home; and whether he will authorise reasonable out-of-pocket expenses to these officers when travelling on official business, even though their absence from their offices is for a shorter period than 10 hours.

Sir B. Smith: The officers in question are dealt with under regulations applicable to all staff of the Ministry of Food and the Civil Service generally. The circumstances to which the hon. and gallant Member refers do not afford any grounds for special treatment.

Wing-Commander Robinson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why a town clerk, travelling as such, can draw his expenses, but if the same man travels as a food executive officer he has to pay the out-of-pocket expenses himself?

Sir B. Smith: The only difference is that I do not employ the town clerk.

Priority Milk

Mrs. Middleton: asked the Minister of Food how many adult people in this country, other than nursing and expectant mothers, are registered for priority milk; and whether he is satisfied that there is no great misuse of the priority permits for milk that are extended to certain classes of invalids.

Sir B. Smith: The number of adult consumers, other than expectant mothers and mothers of infants under one year old, who receive priority supplies of milk, is estimated to be about 600,000. The possibility of misuse of priority arrangements, whereby certain invalids receive extra milk, is under review by my Department, with the object of ascertaining whether any tightening-up of the present procedure is necessary.

Mr. House: In connection with this question of high quality milk, is the Minister prepared to consider the supply of unpasteurized milk?

Sir B. Smith: I am looking into the matter, and hope at some future date to implement the general policy on the provision of a clean milk supply set out in the White Paper issued in 1943.

Old Age Pensioners(Milk)

Mrs. Ayrton Gould: asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the fact that old age pensioners are receiving no increased allowances this winter, he will raise their milk ration to half a pint a day instead of only two pints a week.

Sir B. Smith: I am advised that there are no nutritional grounds for allowing extra milk to old age pensioners. In any

case, the milk supply position precludes any such additional allowance. My hon. Friend will appreciate that, while milk continues in short supply, the establishment of a large new class of priority consumers would reduce the quantity of milk required for non-priority consumption, and, during the period of low production, it would bring the weekly non-priority allowance below two pints. More than 50 per cent. of the present milk supplies are already given to priority consumers, who represent one-third of the total number of consumers.

Mrs. Gould: Is it possible to investigate the present priority consumers and find out whether it would be possible for some of these priorities to be used for old age pensioners who badly need the milk, instead of some of the classes who are getting it?

Sir B. Smith: I have already said in my answer that I am investigating it.

Building Workers

Captain George Jeger: asked the Minister of Food whether he will make an increase of rations available for building workers employed on sites where no canteen facilities exist and who have to carry their mid-day meal with them.

Sir B. Smith: No, Sir. It would be contrary to general policy to give workers in any particular industry extra individual rations, except the special cheese ration, which is allowed to certain categories of workers for whom the provision of catering facilities is impossible, and who, therefore, require to take a mid-day meal with them to their work. The special cheese ration has not been authorised for workers in the building industry since, in the majority of cases, it is practicable for the employers to set up canteens or to provide packed meals.

Crops Damage, Orford (Compensation)

Sir Robert Young: asked the Minister of Food on what date the valuation of the loss sustained by a member of the Orford and District Allotment Association, Lancashire, took place; whether the assessment of the loss was after the offers of £6 4s. in the first instance and of £10 in the second instance and on what basis were these offers made; and whether the estimated loss of £13 17s. 8½d. was known


to the director, Meat and Livestock Division, when the lesser amounts were offered as a final and full settlement of the claim; and for what reason.

Sir B. Smith: The answer to the first and second parts of the Question is that the first valuation of the loss was made towards the end of October, 1944, before the offers of £6 4s. and £10 respectively. The answer to the third part is that the estimate of the loss at £13 17s. 8½d. was not made until 24th April, 1945, and was not known to the director, Meat and Livestock Division, when the lesser amounts were offered.

Sir R. Young: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why it was necessary for two assessments of this damage to be made, and how he assessed the damage owing to the produce consumed by the animals that broke into the allotments?

Sir B. Smith: In the first instance, it was an official of the Ministry of Agriculture who assessed the damage, and in the second, it was my man. He increased it to £14.

Surplus Herrings

Major Sir Basil Neven-Spence: asked the Minister of Food why the herring fishermen in the Clyde area are not implementing the agreement recently concluded with his Department by which they undertook to land herring for packing and export to the Continent.

Sir B. Smith: No formal agreement was made with the Clyde fishermen in regard to the scheme to export surplus herring to the Continent, although their representatives were consulted and agreed to the prices offered. I am unable to say precisely why the Clyde fishermen did not respond to the scheme, but it seems likely that the main reason was their preoccupation with other forms of fishing.

Poultry (Prices)

Mr. Dye: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that prices of turkeys and other poultry to producers are practically the same as those fixed in the early part of the war, at a level to discourage the production of such birds and, consequently, do not bring to the producers a price sufficient to over the costs of production and a fair profit; and whether he will review the whole position, with a view to encouraging a greater production and

ensuring to the producer a fair price and a stable market.

Sir B. Smith: I am aware that the maximum first-hand prices of turkeys and other poultry have not been altered since October, 1941, and of the circumstances in which those prices were fixed. The adequacy of the prices, and the advisability of encouraging production by increasing them, will be examined when the annual review of agricultural prices takes place in February next.

Bakers (Shortage)

Major Symonds: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that the bread supply in Cambridge is endangered by the shortage of baking operatives; if he will take steps to assist the transfer to that area of bakers from other parts of the country where the shortage is less acute; and, in particular, if he will approach the Service Departments with a view to obtaining the release under Class B of bakers now becoming redundant because of the decrease in the size of the Armed Forces.

Sir B. Smith: I am aware that there are difficulties at Cambridge, as elsewhere, owing to the shortage of bakers, but bread supplies are being maintained. My Department has the position under constant review, and special assistance has already been given to certain Cambridge bakeries which were short of staff. As regards Class B, a considerable number of bakers are being released throughout the country.

Mr. House: Is the Minister prepared to meet this question of the shortage of bread by providing a better quality of bread and also wholemeal bread?

Shop Owners (Demobilisation)

Mr. Royle: asked the Minister of Food if he is prepared to recommend that all men in the distributive food trades, who were compelled to close their shops oft entering His Majesty's Service, should be released under Scheme B to enable them to re-open in time for the next registration period in July 1946.

Sir B. Smith: I am not prepared to go so far as my hon. Friend suggests, but would refer him to the comprehensive reply I gave on the question of releases to the hon. Member for Stalybridge (Mr. Lang) on 24th October last.

Mr. Royle: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate the great disadvantage under which these men will be placed, in view of the fact that they will have to enter into competition, and may I ask him if he will see to it that men in the Forces who had to close their shops will be out very quickly?

Sir B. Smith: All I can do is to suggest that my hon. Friend makes an application through the proper channels—that is, to the Ministry of Labour under Class B.

Sweets (Gifts to Europe)

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the fact that ½lb. of sweets is to be issued to German children under the age of 10 years, he will rescind the regulation preventing the dispatch by individuals in this country of the personal sweet ration to children in other European countries.

Sir B. Smith: No, Sir.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Does the Minister regard it as satisfactory that, whereas the Government are organising the provision of sweets for children in Germany, private individuals in this country should be denied the opportunity of sending their own sweet ration to friends in Holland and Belgium?

Sir B. Smith: I am not aware that the Government are organising the provision of sweets for children in Germany.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Then will the right hon. Gentleman ask the B.B.C. to issue a denial?

Sir B. Smith: I do not take my information from the B.B.C.

Flour (Extraction Rate)

Mr. Scott-Elliot: asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the opinion expressed by the trade representatives of the flour milling industry that the standards laid down by the conference of last January could not be applied unless millers were permitted to reinforce their flour, he will consider raising the rate of extraction to some figure in excess of 80 per cent.

Sir B. Smith: I think my hon. Friend is under some misunderstanding, as I am not aware that the trade representatives of the flour milling industry have said that the standards suggested in the recent re-

port could not be attained with 80 per cent. flour. I see no reason, therefore, why the present extraction should not continue in accordance with the unanimous recommendation of the conference.

Mr. Scott-Elliot: Is it not a fact that the four ingredients considered essential to the life of the community were selected by the conference, and that Lord Horder's sub-committee was able to report only three of these ingredients in flour of 80 percent. extraction?

Sir B. Smith: I said that the recommendations of the committee were unanimous, and their view of the necessity for continuing with the 80 percent. extraction was published in the White Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOAP RATIONING

Wing-Commander Roland Robinson: asked the Minister of Food what is the reason for the multiplicity of forms issued by his Department in connection with the rationing of soap; and whether he will assist all concerned in the soap trade by arranging a simplification of procedure in this matter.

Sir B. Smith: The minimum number of forms is being used to enable traders to obtain supplies of soap, and the procedure is as simple as possible.

Wing-Commander Robinson: What is the advantage of having the dealers in soap spend a lot of time delivering these seven complicated forms which I hold in my hand?

Sir B. Smith: My information is that there are three.

Mr. Lavers: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that owing to the hard nature of the domestic water in the North-east, the present soap ration is inadequate; and what steps he will take to remedy the present unsatisfactory position.

Sir B. Smith: While I appreciate the point made by the hon. Member, the shortage of fats makes it impossible for me to increase the soap ration at present, and it is not practicable to differentiate between areas according to the type of water.

Mr. Lavers: While appreciating the answer given by the Minister, may I ask


if he is aware that, in order to maintain a reasonable standard of cleanliness, our womenfolk are compelled to go round the shops in search of the remaining sticks of shaving soap a most uneconomical and unsatisfactory state of affairs?

Sir B. Smith: That is a little hard on the beard, but my problem is to get oils and fats to make the soap go round at all.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Footwear (Cripples)

Mr. John Lewis: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any special coupon allowance can be made in respect of those cripples who require one special boot, as a result of which there is increased wear on the other foot.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Ellis Smith): Yes, Sir. We are always glad to consider sympathetically applications in such circumstances.

Mr. Lewis: Will the Minister take steps to have this made clear, in view of the fact that people suffering from this form of physical disability are unaware that they are entitled to additional coupon allowance?

Mr. Ellis Smith: We understand the necessity for its being made clear, and, if a doctor's certificate is produced, there is no difficulty about the application.

Newsprint

Mr. Scott-Elliot: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will facilitate imports of additional newsprint sufficient to allow the size of newspapers to be increased, subject to such increase not being used for the purpose of additional advertisements.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on the 10th December to my hon. Friends the Members for Newport (Mr. P. Freeman) and Sedgefield (Mr. Leslie).

Mr. Lipson: May I ask whether newspapers are allowed to use the quota which they have to increase the size of the papers?

Mr. Ellis Smith: That is a different question, but I understand that the whole

matter is to be discussed on the Motion for the Adjournment, when we should have a good Debate about the whole thing.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMPULSORY CHURCH PARADES

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air, whether he will take steps to abolish compulsory church parades in the R.A.F.

Mr. Strachey: This is not a question for the Royal Air Force alone, but for the three Services and the Government.

Mr. Brown: Does not the Under-Secretary of State for Air realise that compulsory Christianity is a contradiction in terms, and is he not prepared to play his part in abolishing this unchristian and almost blasphemous practice?

Mr. Strachey: That is a question for a theological Ministry.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

Naval Flying Training Unit, Heathfield

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation why he has agreed to the permanent establishment of a Naval Flying Training Unit within 1,200 yards of Prestwick airport.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Ivor Thomas): The Naval Unit referred to is presumably that stationed at Heathfield airfield. My Department has not agreed to the permanent establishment of a Naval Flying Training Unit at this airfield. I am informed that flying training there will cease next month.

Sir T. Moore: Thank you very much, Sir.

Fares

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what is the schedule of fares from Britain to New York and from London to Glasgow by B.O.A.C.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: On the London to Glasgow service the fares charged are: — single, £9 os. od.; return, £14 10s. od. This service is operated by Railway Air Services Ltd.. not by British Overseas


Airways Corporation. On the British Overseas Airways Corporation flying-boat service across the Atlantic the terminal point in the United States is Baltimore. With permission, I will circulate in the Official Report a schedule of the fares charged.

Colonel Hutchison: Arising out of the first part of that answer, is the Minister aware that a Scottish service, namely, Scottish Aviation, are prepared to carry out this operation at something like half the price which he has just quoted?

Mr. Thomas: I have seen many schedules of the proposed fares, but I have yet to be satisfied that they could be carried out in practice. Naturally, these fares are based on the present conditions and the fares will become much cheaper in peace.

Colonel Hutchison: Will the Minister be prepared to give them a trial?

Mr. Thomas: The policy of the Government has been very clearly announced.

Following is the schedule:

North Atlantic summer route (direct).



£
s.
d.


Poole to Foynes
11
10
0


Poole to Botwood
120
0
0


Poole to Baltimore
142
0
0


Winter route (via Bermuda).


Westbound.


Poole to Lisbon
35
0
0


Poole to Bathurst
65
0
0


Poole to Trinidad
173
0
0


Poole to Bermuda
190
0
0


Poole to Baltimore
198
0
0


Eastbound.
$


Baltimore to Bermuda
80


Baltimore to Foynes
525


Baltimore to Poole 
647

Return fares, where available, show a reduction of 10 per cent.

African Aerodromes (Facilities)

Flight-Lieutenant Beswick: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what radio navigational aids and night landing equipment it is proposed to instal at the aerodromes of Kano, Maiduguri, El Geneina, and El Fasha, to replace that previously installed by the U.S. authorities, and now, since the end of Lend-Lease, non-available for our civil aircraft.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: Royal Air Force radio communication and direction finding services together with temporary night lighting equipment exist and are being maintained for the time being at the four aerodromes in question. These facilities are sufficient for the air traffic now using the trans-Africa route. The provision of additional facilities will depend upon decisions to be reached regarding the future of this route.

Flight-Lieutenant Beswick: Is not my hon. Friend aware that although there are some of the facilities mentioned, they are not adequate? Hitherto, they have used the American system, which is now dismantled.

Mr. Thomas: If my hon. and gallant Friend would like to go into the technical details with me, I shall be glad to do so afterwards, but I am satisfied that the provision is adequate.

Flying Boats

Major Bruce: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether he is yet in a position to make a statement as to the future of the flying boat for long distance passenger and freight transport.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: I am not at present able to make such a statement, but development work on flying boats is being intensively pursued.

Routes to U.S.A.

Major Bruce: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, what routes between Great Britain and the U.S.A. are being used by British civil aircraft; and to what extent and for what reasons these routes differ from these used by American civil aircraft.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: The British Overseas Airways Corporation is at present operating flying boats to and from the United States on the following routes:

Westbound:

Poole — Lisbon — Bathurst — Natal — Belem — Trinidad — Bermuda — Baltimore.

Eastbound:

Baltimore—Bermuda—Foynes or Lisbon—Poole.

An American airline operates land-planes between New York and Hurn, and


these normally fly via Newfoundland and the Shannon Airport. The routes used by the British Flying Boat services have been selected to suit the operational characteristics of the aircraft.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Churchill: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the Business for the week after the Christmas Recess?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Yes Sir. Tuesday, 22nd January—Report and Third Reading of the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Bill; Third Reading of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Bill; Report and Third Reading of the National Service (Release of Conscientious Objector";) Bill; and Committee and remaining stages of the India (Proclamations of Emergency) Bill [Lords].

Wednesday, 23rd January—Report and Third Reading of the Emergency Laws Transitional Provisions) Bill, and of the Trunk Roads Bill.

On Thursday, 24th January, there will be an opportunity for a Debate on Civil Aviation, which will arise on a Motion to be proposed by the Government.

Friday, 25th January—Second Reading of the Ministers of the Crown (Transfer of Function?) Bill, and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.

Mr. Gallacher: Might I ask the Minister if his attention has been drawn to a Motion in the name of the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) and a whole host of Scottish Members, and may I recommend it to his favourable consideration for a day?

Mr. Morrison: I am afraid it would not be possible to give a day, but I have given the best advice I could to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it will be the intention of most hon. Members to seek an extension of the Rule on the Debate on Civil Aviation; and will he keep that in his mind?

Mr. Morrison: I will keep it in my mind.

Mr. Bowles: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the Motion on the Civil Aviation Debate will ask the House to welcome the contents of the White Paper; and if so, is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the contents of the White Paper?

Mr. Morrison: The Motion will be a Motion to approve the White Paper, and from the fact that it is published, it must follow that every member of His Majesty's Government approves of the White Paper

Mr. Stephen: Will the right hon. Gentleman afford an opportunity for a discussion of the changes in the pensions system, on which a White Paper was issued recently?

Mr. Morrison: I think we had better give a little more time for that to be studied, see what the reactions are, and what general feelings there may be.

Mr. Gallacher: I think the Minister misunderstood me. I think the Motion he referred to, is one that was down two weeks ago, but is he aware that the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs has a new Motion down?

Mr. Churchill: rose —

Mr. Gallacher: Wait a minute.

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir, that is news to me, but I will bring myself up to date and will have a further conference with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Churchill: Could we know when we shall have the White Paper on Civil Aviation, because some time to consider it is very desirable?

Mr. Ivor Thomas: The White Paper will be available in the Vote Office at five o'clock this afternoon.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: May I ask a question, Mr. Speaker, about the revision of the Question roster? It is, I understand, a matter for the Government and not for you, but there seems to be no other occasion on which I can put the point. Could I ask the Lord President whether he is aware that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is called down to this House every day for the purpose of answering one or two Questions, most of which are put on highly individual topics by the hon. and learned


Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt)? In view of the fact that the Foreign Secretary answers Questions only once a week on very much wider topics, would it not be much better if the Chancellor of the Duchy also answered Questions once a week, instead of every day?

Mr. Morrison: If I may say so, the Noble Lord is on a fair point for consideration. When this system was started my hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy was not likely to be so regularly and prominently featured by the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith and others as has been the case. We shall look into the matter in consultation with Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lipson: Is it the Government's intention to have a Debate on Palestine soon after the Recess?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir. I am sorry it cannot be the first week, but we shall do our best to have it on an early day after the resumption of the House.

Captain Crowder: Will the Leader of the House also consider putting the Foreign Office Questions first on one day a week which was always done before?

Mr. Morrison: My general impression is that the present practice has been working pretty well, and that a high proportion of the Foreign Office Questions has been reached.

Mr. Paget: Can the Leader of the House give us any indication of when the Debate on the agricultural statement is likely to be?

Mr. Morrison: I cannot, but I recognise that the House will wish to have a Debate on agriculture. It was understood that it would be after Christmas. We will see what we can do when we come back.

Mr. De la Bère: The right hon. Gentleman will not forget all about it?

Mr. Morrison: I never forget about the hon. Gentleman, anyhow.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS

That they have agreed to—

Finance Bill, without Amendment. Amendments to, —

Plympton St. Mary Rural District Council Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

BILL PRESENTED

COAL INDUSTRY NATIONALISATION BILL,

" to establish public ownership and control of the coal-mining industry and certain allied activities; and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. Shinwell; supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Herbert Morrison, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Sir Stafford Cripps; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 62.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House). — [Mr. H. Morrison.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

Resolved:

That this House do meet Tomorrow at Eleven o'clock; that no Questions be taken after Twelve o'clock; and that at Five o'clock Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the House without Question put.— [Mr. II. Morrison.]

ADJOURNMENT (CHRISTMAS)

House, at its rising Tomorrow, to adjourn till Tuesday, 22nd January. — [Mr. H. Morrison.]

Orders of the Day — BANK OF ENGLAND BILL

As amended, on recommittal, considered.

CLAUSE 3. —(Consequential provisions as to constitution and powers of the Bank.)

3.20 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: 1 beg to move, in page 2, line 39, leave out "other charters," and insert "statutory instruments."
The next two Amendments on the Paper are consequential, and the three together would make the Subsection (3) read:
 such statutory instruments as may from time to time be granted by Order in Council,
with the proviso that a draft of any such Order in Council shall be laid before this House, and the Order shall not be sub-

mitted unless an Address is presented to His Majesty by this House praying that the Order be made.
I agree that there is still a difficulty about this Amendment because at the moment there is no such thing as a "statutory instrument." That is, unfortunately, the case, because at present there are two Bills, running on parallel lines through this House. There is the Bill to which we gave the Third Reading —the Statutory Instruments Bill—which lays down the procedure for dealing with a statutory instrument. If, in the Parliamentary race, that Bill gets home before this one, then, before Parliament has finally finished with this Bill, the words "statutory instrument" will have a meaning which they have not got at the moment. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not turn down the Amendment on that ground. My hon. Friends and I think that there would be an advantage if this proposal were. accepted instead of having a charter, which is, of course, not discussible in this House and is not seen by this House, with one possible exception and that is, should the Government of the day think it right to produce a draft charter in the form of a White Paper. That procedure has sometimes been adopted. So far as I can remember, that was done in the case of the B.B.C., but it is a rather cumbrous procedure, and it would be simpler, now that we shall have this new arrangement for dealing with statutory instruments, if the charter could be brought before the House and discussed here.
We think this is of importance because, as I said the day before yesterday, we are moving into new ground in this Bill with regard to the relationship between the Government and the Bank of England and the other banks; and we think that it would be advantageous for this House to be able to see what is proposed in the instrument under which the Bank itself will be working. The Chancellor may again raise the point why should it be a statutory instrument to be laid before this House. I said when we were considering another Amendment to this Bill that this might be a Money Bill and that the other place would not in that case be
concerned with it.
Whether we were right or wrong in that, we cannot say. If it were not such a Bill it would be quite easy, if so desired,


to insert "both Houses of Parliament" when that particular question has been solved. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will look with a kindly eye on this proposal, and give the House an opportunity, before the charter becomes effective, of seeing it, and of presenting an Address that it should be made. In other words, this House should have the authority to see the charter is in its right form for the purposes which the Government have in mind.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): I am not clear why the right hon. and gallant Gentleman attaches importance to this Amendment. In general, Royal charters are not subject to any such procedure as he indicates. As I understand it, the proposal is that, apart from the provisions of this Bill in other respects, the Bank should be regulated in future by Orders in Council which would not be effective until the House of Commons had, by an Address on each occasion, approved the draft. I must say that I do not think that would be a very appropriate procedure, because the subjects which will be dealt with in these charters— and the right hon. Gentleman no doubt will have studied the subject matter of the charters—are internal matters arising out of the day to day conduct of the business of the Bank; for instance, such matters as the power of the court of directors to appoint and pay staff; to act, notwithstanding the fact that there may be, for the moment, some vacancies on the court; to deal with questions of quorum and disqualifications—obvious disqualifications like lunacy and bankruptcy and so on. I should not have thought that this was the sort of subject-matter on which the House of Commons would desire to have a Debate. I should have thought that these were matters with which the Bank should be enabled to deal largely within its own discretion.

3.30 p.m.

As I have said on previous occasions, we hope that under the new regime which the Bill will inaugurate the Bank will still retain substantial freedom of action on all this class of matter. It would be a pity to have undue Parliamentary intervention. It would be more suitable that the charters should continue to be issued in the form common to Royal charters. If, however, any particular matter arose

which it seemed to any considerable number of hon. Members of the House—Members of the Opposition in particular— should be brought before the House there are many possibilities under Parliamentary procedure of securing a Debate. In any case of that sort I should not wish to stand between the House and discussion of any item in the charter which seemed suitable for discussion here. Future charters, of course, will be published— there will be no secrecy about them—after they have been granted by the Crown and accepted by the court, and I should have thought it would be better to leave the matter as it is. In view of these assurances I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will not feel it necessary to press the Amendment in this form.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: May I ask whether there has ever been a case where a Royal charter has been applied to an organisation which is completely under the control of the Government? Surely the machinery of Royal charters has, up to now, been reserved for independent bodies. It seems to me there is a danger if we extend that procedure to something which will be in fact a part of the executive machine of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman said that the machinery we propose would mean Parliamentary intervention. That is because there is a good deal of Ministerial intervention. I should feel happier in accepting the procedure of the Bill if the right hon. Gentleman could give some assurance that what has been regarded hitherto as the province of the Royal Charter is not going to be extended.

Mr. Dalton: Of course it is a new precedent. The status and constitution of the Bank is being changed by the Bill, but I do not think that touches the major part at any rate of the charter. I do not personally wish to intervene and this is not a question in which the Government would wish over much to intervene. Conditions affecting the staff, by-laws and so forth we should wish to leave within the discretion of the Governor and Deputy-Governor and court of the Bank, and we should follow—not slavishly, of course—the advice of the Governor and the court. I do not think it would be proper to discuss such matters here, subject to the undertaking I have given that if there is any particular point which seemed to


make Parliamentary discussion desirable we would not stand in the way. I suggest that we might leave it there and let events develop, and if hon. Members opposite think when the charter is published that it contains something which they would like to discuss we would not stand in the way.

Captain Crookshank: After what the right hon. Gentleman said I feel inclined to accept these assurances, but I would like to point out that some things which he has mentioned, like bylaws and so on, are often included in the Schedule of a Bill but in this case they are not. There is a further point that a Royal Charter cannot be altered. Therefore any discussion would have to be in the light of the charter as it was drafted. However, after the assurance given by the right hon. Gentleman I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 4. —(Treasury directions to the Bank and relations of the Bank with other banks.)

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 3, line 4, after "Bank," insert:
 including the management of any funds operated on behalf of the staff of the Bank.
This Clause provides that the affairs of the Bank shall be managed by the court, and what we want to make clear by this Amendment is that the affairs of the Bank which shall be managed by the court of directors, include the management of funds operated on behalf of the staff of the Bank. We want to make quite certain that there will be no possibility of the Treasury interfering with these particular funds. There are pension funds, staff superannuation funds, and I think some sort of educational funds, which have been operated amicably by the staff and the Bank executive jointly. Some of them may be on a contributory basis and some not, but it would be a great pity in any case if the Treasury had any authority over such funds or could in any way interfere with them. It may be that the wording of the Clause as it stands leaves the position right, but we would like to make doubly sure by putting in the words of this Amendment and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be able to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Dalton: I do not think this Amendment is necessary to carry out the object

which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has in mind. This matter was mentioned in the proceedings of the Committee, and he himself took part in the discussion of the point. I will quote from page 20 of the Minutes of Proceedings of the Select Committee on the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman asked the Governor of the Bank:
 Is there anything in the way of a pension or superannuation fund for the staff? — Yes, in all cases.
How is that going to be safeguarded on the transfer? —That is safeguarded on the transfer because the pension funds of the Bank do not form part of the assets of the Bank at all; they are quite separate.
Then my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. Williamson) asked:
 They are separate funds? 
" and the Governor of the Bank replied:
 They have been built up over a period of time and kept quite separate from other assets of the Bank. They are not an asset of the Bank at all; they are nothing to do with the Bank: they are quite separate.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman pursued the matter and asked:
 Under the new arrangements the Bank will still be able to pay its contributions without any reference to the Treasury. …
The Governor of the Bank replied:
 I anticipate that that is so … it has not occurred to me that there would be any interference with anything of that kind.
In fact these funds are not now administered by the court. They are administered by trustees. I have checked this in view of the Amendment on the Paper. They are kept entirely separate, as the Governor stated in evidence, from the other assets of the Bank and I have no intention of interfering in any way with this regime. I do not even know who are the trustees and I do not even seek to inquire. I am sure the thing is properly arranged and I have never heard any complaint on the part of the staff about the present arrangements or that they have any ground for apprehension of any change. I think we might leave it exactly in status quo.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Dalton: I beg to move, in page 3, Subsection (3), at end, insert:
 and before authorising the issue of any such directions the Treasury shall give the


banker concerned, or such person as appears to them to represent him, an opportunity of making representations with respect thereto.
I have put down this Amendment following a discussion in Committee when the question was raised whether, under Subsection (3), it was clear that there would be proper consultation with representatives of the clearing banks before any direction was issued under the Subsection. I think I made it abundantly clear that it would never be my wish, nor could I imagine it would be the wish of any successor of mine, suddenly to issue a direction without proper consultation with those concerned, but it was suggested that the matter should be made clear on the face of the Bill and I said I would consider it. The point which I had to look at carefully was how in any such Amendment as this we should define the persons who should be consulted. I have taken advice and it seems to me that the form of words on the Paper will best give effect to the general desire of the Committee. I had first thought of providing for consultation with the chairman of the committee of the clearing banks, but on consideration it was felt that that would not do, because there are Scottish clearing banks and they of course have a nationalist structure. They are not co-operative with banks South of the Tweed, and I can quite imagine that if we wanted to issue directions, say, to some bank in Aberdeen, the bankers in Aberdeen might not regard the admirable chairman of the National Provincial Bank, who is chairman of the clearing banks committee, as a suitable person for consultation.

Mr. Boothby: There would be strong resistance.

Mr. Dalton: For that reason we thought the words on the Paper better than those which I originally thought might meet the case. The Amendment does give a certain elasticity. If an improbable sudden direction were issued to some Scottish bank, and the Treasury wished to consult the chairman of the bank, they would, very likely, invite him to travel up to London. He would probably expect us to pay his fare. At any rate we could invite him to come to London and have a chat. On the other hand, if it were a purely English matter I am quite sure that the clearing banks in the

City of London would be quite happy that the chairman, for the time being, of their committee should represent them. This form of words leaves open both these possibilities, and I hope that the House will feel that the Amendment I am now moving carries out in the best way possible the undertaking which I gave during the Committee Stage.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I should like to express, on behalf of my hon. Friends on this side of the House, our gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman for meeting us on this point. I agree with him that the form the Amendment has taken is the correct one. It would, obviously, be unfair to expect him, if he issued directions to bankers as a whole, to see all bankers, especially in view of the new custom—I understand that when bankers come to see him, he offers them tea There is one thing I should like to point out. This suggestion was made to the right hon. Gentleman, I think by myself, and he was strongly advised by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) to resist it. I can only say to the right hon. Gentleman that, provided he sticks to this fundamental principle of accepting my advice and rejecting that of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, he will complete his term of office as Chancellor of the Exchequer with credit to himself, and benefit to the country.

Amendment agreed to.

Lieut.-Colonel Nigel Birch: I beg to move, in page 3, line 16, after the words last inserted, insert:
 No person shall be prohibited from disclosing the terms of any direction issued under this subsection provided that it shall be lawful to prohibit such disclosure for a period not exceeding three months if the First Lord of the Treasury certifies that such prohibition is necessary in the public interest.
I shall be very brief. I think this matter was given a fairly good run during the Committee stage, and the Amendment arises out of that discussion. The point of the Amendment is that proper publicity should be given to all directions issued by the Bank. Our difficulty in this Bill, as I see it, is that Clause 4 is really an attempt to define intangibles. It is very difficult, therefore, to say exactly what is meant so that it is absolutely clear and is not subject to abuse. I feel that it is the duty of an Opposition to try to get


the greatest degree of precision possible into legislation like this. In discussing this Amendment in another form previously, the Chancellor referred to what any reasonable successor of his would be expected to do. It is wrong to assume that he will be succeeded by a line of angels. That is improbable. Therefore we must get the greatest possible precision into this Measure.
When the question of people not being able to publish the fact that they had been given directions was challenged, the main defence was that in a state of war or approaching war, it might be necessary to keep it quiet, at any rate for a period of time. This Amendment is a reasonable attempt to meet that idea. On general principles, it is fair to say that in the atomic age, crises are liable to be rather shorter than they used to be. This Amendment gives three months, in which time it would clearly be possible to introduce the emergency legislation that was necessary. It is, I feel, wrong that we on this side of the House should acquiesce in legislation which, under a Chancellor with a Star Chamber type of mind, would be capable of serious abuse.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: I beg formally to second the Amendment.

Mr. Dalton: I doubt very much whether any such Amendment as this is necessary, or whether, if such an Amendment should be necessary, this particular Amendment is apt for the purpose. Let us look at the legal aspect of the matter. A direction is issued to a banker, or a number of bankers. Before it is issued, discussions take place, and it is known that there is an intention to issue a direction. What I tried to make clear I had hoped by way of reassurance in the Committee, was that, normally, in the vast majority of likely cases there would be no legal prohibition upon the directions, whether issued or intended to be issued, being mentioned. I said that normally, in the vast majority of cases, the Official Secrets Act would not apply, and if it did not apply, no other Act, so far as I am aware, would apply to make it in any way an offence to give some publicity to this matter.
I do not think that the Amendment really carries that any further. It is still true, Amendment or no Amendment, that it would be quite possible for some banker

who felt that the Treasury had it in mind to issue a direction about which he felt strongly, or any person to whom the banker had spoken and who felt strongly about it—perhaps a Member of Parliament or a journalist—to ventilate such a matter. There is no legal prohibition. It could be ventilated by a Question in the House. I can well imagine that I or some successor of mine might be asked whether it was intended to issue a direction in such a sense, or if it was known to be pending, whether the Chancellor had in mind any direction under this Clause.
Or, if a direction had been issued, there is no reason why a Question should not be put in this House, or why a comment could not quite properly be made in the Press upon the matter. The freedom of the Press and freedom of speech are sufficiently safeguarded by ordinary law in normal times, for that to be unobjectionable in principle. I do not think there is anything to safeguard. On the other hand, during the Committee stage, I explained that there should not be any misunderstanding about an extreme situation. I gave the case of a state of war, or a state of serious international tension, in which it might be felt by all responsible people that these matters were best kept quiet for the time being. I would argue that, generally speaking, no such Amendment as this is necessary.
Passing from that general argument to the particular terms of the Amendment, I do not think that the period of three months is appropriate. It is true that in the atomic age perhaps we move faster than in the pre-atomic age. But we are not proposing to drop any atom bombs on the City. That is far from our intention.

Captain Crookshank: This Bill?

Mr. Dalton: This mild and moderate Measure which we are now discussing does nothing except regularise, and make logical, certain arrangements which have for a long time been accepted by all reasonable people. It is not the sort of revolution which need terrify hon. Members opposite. If they want revolutions we shall be able to do much better than this later on. I do not think that the period of three months is appropriate, even in the atomic age. It is too long in the full atomic age, and too short in all normal circumstances. I repeat that I


do not think there is anything to safeguard. The hon. and gallant Member desires to safeguard freedom of expression and communication. These are amply safeguarded under the present law, and in the circumstances I hope that he will not press the Amendment.

Captain Crookshank: With all due respect, I cannot accept that. The Chancellor has really brought this trouble upon himself. On Monday he said:
 Directions such as we are here contemplating would not normally of themselves, and by their essential nature, fall within the scope of the Official Secrets Act." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1945; Vol. 417, c. 1014.]
We cannot see how, in any circumstances, the Official Secrets Act could come into the matter. The fact that the Chancellor had that possibility in mind, is what has put us particularly on our guard.

Mr. Dalton: That is suspicious.

Captain Crookshank: One has to be suspicious when one looks at the right hon. Gentleman. Behind that bland smile he hides a multitude of sins, and this is not one of the least of them. He has just said that, normally, the Official Secrets Act would not apply. Does it not follow from that that, abnormally, it could apply?

Mr. Dalton: Certainly, in a state of war or near war.

Captain Crookshank: How can it? The Official Secrets Act is not a rubber stamp which can be put on a document and used at will—at least I do not think it is. It is not a reasonable proposition to say that, at will, the Official Secrets Act can be turned on and off like a hot water tap. I wish the right hon. Gentleman would not look at the future of the world as one of perpetual tension. We know only too well from recent experience that war emergency powers can deal with these problems when the time arises. If for any reason there is a state of tension, this is in order to make sure that the fact that there are considerations which should not be made public, should be made the subject of the certificate of the First Lord of the Treasury. Surely that is a reasonable proposition.
The Chancellor spoke of Questions in the House, and said that of course nothing could prevent the recipient of a direction from making it public. Then let us be quite clear and say so. The direction might say "This is a secret," and therefore the recipient would be stopped from giving any publicity. In that case, we say that a certificate should accompany it, with the full authority of the Government, to say that that prohibition is necessary in the public interest. In those circumstances, we should all know where we were. Recipients of directions may be left in considerable dubiety about the point. The right hon. Gentleman also said that there is no point in the period of three months. When my hon. and gallant Friend was drafting this Amendment, he had to put in some figure, and three months seemed to be a reasonable one. But we are not attached to that, and if, on further consideration, the Chancellor accepts the view which we are putting forward, that the operation of the Official Secrets Act should only be the result of a direct certificate by the Government, he might, in another place, alter the words "three months" to others more suitable, and we could look at it again when the Lords Amendments come down to us. I agree that in the normal case the question would not arise, but as he brought in the Official Secrets Act as a possibility, we were naturally suspicious, and we ask that if there is any recourse to that it should only be as a result of a certificate issued by the First Lord of the Treasury and then we should all know where we are. We recognise that this Amendment was put down only last night, and that the right hon. Gentleman has obviously not had very much time to consider it, but I hope that he will give it further thought, and in any case, I must tell him that it is a matter to which we attach considerable importance.

Mr. Dalton: My present view is that this Amendment is quite unnecessary. It adds nothing to the legal safeguards which we had introduced for all His Majesty's subjects, but, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman truly says, there has not been very much time to consider this since the Committee stage, and I will look at it again; but that must not be taken to be a commitment to changing my view, which is that the Amendment is unnecessary and that we might leave the law as it is. If this Amendment is now


withdrawn then, without prejudice, I will think about it again, but I am inclined to think that it is better to leave the Clause unamended, because in itself it contains all the safeguards which would be desired by hon. Members opposite in reason and general law.

Captain Crookshank: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to have a talk with one or two of us while he is thinking about it, because he will remember that the Official Secrets Act has very strange repercussions, almost as wide as those which arise on questions concerning offices of profit under the Crown.

Mr. Dalton: I shall be very happy to consult hon. Members between now and the next stage.

Lieut.-Colonel Birch: ;On that understanding I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.3 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
I think it is generally known that about six months ago the electors of this country were invited by the Labour Party to give it power to carry through a programme designed to bring a specified number of industries and services under public control. In that programme to bring the Bank of England, as the central financial institution of the country, under public control figured very prominently. I know, and I think my experience was that of other Members on this side of the House, that the suggestion that the Bank of England should be nationalised did arouse very widespread interest and a great deal of support. The country did give—there is no doubt about this—a mandate to the present Government to carry through its programme in no uncertain fashion. So far as the Government's promise to nationalise the Bank of England is concerned the passage of this Bill through the House today will fulfil one of the promises which those of us on this side did make to the electorate.
This is a short Bill. It has had a relatively speedy and, I think, easy passage through all its stages up to now. I venture to suggest that there are four reasons for this. The first is the simplicity and brevity of the Bill itself. I think great credit is

due to the "back room boys" who as the Parliamentary draftsmen elaborated this Measure. They have in my view done a very good job of work. The second reason why we have had such a pleasant time on the whole with this Bill has been the felicity and clarity with which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has on all occasions commended its virtues to this House, and to the good humoured patience with which he has resisted the errors of judgment and the attempts of the party opposite to mar it in its passage through its various stages. The third is the public spirit shown by the present Governor of the Bank of England, who, whatever his private views may be—and I do not know what they are on this matter—has realised that this Bill is in accord with the general wishes of the country, and has done his best to see that the will of the people should not be frustrated. Fourthly, I think the fundamental justice of making the proposed change to public ownership is one which does now commend itself to large numbers of people in all parts of the country and, I think too, in all parts of this House.
The passage of this Bill does mark an epoch. It is or will be the first Socialist Measure of its kind to reach the Statute Book. Its importance cannot in my view be over estimated. It is true that in the course of the war far-reaching financial restriction and control have had to be imposed, and that as a result there has been during the last six years, a very close relationship between the Bank of England and the Treasury. The relationship between the two have been exceedingly cordial, but we must not forget that thought his has been so, and though the Treasury can exercise, even in normal times, extensive pressure on the Bank, such pressure has been largely permissive and has had no legal sanction behind it. This Bill gives the Treasury and the country through the Government, that legal sanction. All of us in this House have lived through the period of the Norman conquest. We know and remember that the unemployment and the misery, the uncertainty and the dislocation of the prewar years were largely due to the power which the City could and did exercise to frustrate the work of any Government which called itself progressive.

Mr. Stanley: How about Snowden's Commission?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: With the passing of this Bill never again can the work of a Labour Government be nullified in the same way by the City. It will end for ever that power and remove that fear. I think Mr. Gladstone, for one, would have approved of the provisions of this Bill, and would have gone into the Lobby with us today in support of it. May I remind hon. Members that he was Chancellor of the Exchequer and that he did on one occasion say this:
 From the time I took office as Chancellor of the Exchequer I began to learn that the State held, in the views of the Bank and the City, an essentially false position as to finance. I was tenaciously opposed by the Governor and Deputy-Governor of the Bank. I had the City for antagonist on almost every occasion.

Mr. Stanley: What year was that, may I ask?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I do not think it was 1866. I have not the actual date by me, but the passage I have quoted does appear in the Appendix to Morley's "Life of Gladstone," and I would willingly turn up the reference for my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Stanley: It is not less than 70 years out of date.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am only trying to show how long this reform has been overdue.

Lieut.-Colonel Birch: Mr. Gladstone said, referring to Income Tax, that no tax so much degrades the people. Will the Government take that to heart?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Let me give a brief quotation from another ornament of this House, now dead, the late Lord Horne, who also became Chancellor of the Exchequer. It will be, I am sure, within the recollection of some, at any rate, of the hon. Members of this House, that in March, 1933, he moved a Motion which among other things asked that a controlled monetary policy should be instituted. You cannot have a controlled monetary policy unless you have control and it is only through a Measure of the kind with which we are now dealing that you can get that control. The provisions in this Bill do ensure that Parliament shall be no longer in the dark as to what is going on. There is a story told by the late Dr. Leaf, who was chairman of the Westminster Bank, in his book entitled "Banking," that on one occasion he was

talking to Mr. Montagu Norman, as he then was, about the weekly Bank Return. He said that he thought there was at least one line in it which he understood and that was "Gold Coin and Bullion." The Governor, with a twinkle in his eye, so Dr. Leaf relates, turned to him and said, "Mr. Leaf, I don't think you understand even that." Hon. Members will in future be able to ask Parliamentary Questions and to discover for themselves just what some of these things mean.
Some changes, they are relatively minor ones, have been made during the passage of this Bill. For example, words have been inserted to make it plain that my right hon. Friend has no intention whatever of interfering with the day-to-day work of the Bank and its customers. The inclusion of this limitation of course makes no difference. There never was on the part of the Government any intention of interfering between the Bank and its customers in this way. One is reminded of the early days of railways, when all sorts of fears, which now appear to us rather humorous, were voiced. Farmers, for example, believed that if a railway ran through their fields it would prevent their cows from giving milk. People said, when tunnels were first projected, that no-one who went through one in a train would live to come out on the other side. I think future generations will go back over the Debates on this Bill and will find some of our fears equally absurd and certainly equally quite groundless.
The late Earl Lloyd George, who was another Chancellor of the Exchequer, once said that "no Government will ever get a big programme through unless it is prepared to face up to the reactionary monetary interests in the City of London." This Government has, during the next four or five years, a very big programme to get through. It is essential, therefore, that it should begin at the right end. In putting through this Bill dealing as it does with the central financial structure of the country it has in my view begun at the right end. The reason for this Bill is not that any one questions the integrity of those who run the Bank of England. It is that it is fundamentally wrong, in our view, that the centre of finance and credit of this great democratic nation should be in the hands of a small group accountable to none except themselves. Parliament will now for the future take its financial destiny into its own


hands and direct its own financial policy. Mr. Montagu Norman, in an expansive mood some years ago, said, "The dogs bark but the caravan moves on." During the passage of this Bill we have had a certain amount of barking by Members on the other side which has been on the whole friendly and not antagonistic. What is certain is that when this Bill reaches the Statute Book, as it will, the caravan will continue to move on but it will move on in a new direction. The City and the Bank will be the servant of the people and not, as it has been in the past, its master.

4.15 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: It may be that some new Members of the House have had rather a revelation in the conduct of this Bill. It is a Bill to which those of us who sit on this side of the House—with the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) —are completely opposed, but the discussion has been carried on in a spirit very different from that of discussions which take place outside. I am sure the Chancellor must toe very gratified by the appreciation expressed to him by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, seeing that the Chancellor did not do anything of the kind for the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on the Finance Bill. However, we have opposed this Bill at every stage, and we oppose it still, and shall divide the House against it.
No real argument has been put up by the Government for this Bill. We have had a selection of dead Chancellors of the Exchequer quoted to us, tout no arguments. The Bill is a bad one for this reason, that it puts into the straitjacket of legislative form, what has been a peculiarly loose but eminently flexible and workable arrangement between the Bank of England and the Treasury. The only reason given is that the Socialists have long advocated it. They have advocated a lot of nonsense in their time, and I have no doubt they will go on doing so. It must be admitted that the Bill has received careful consideration. Certainly more time has been devoted to it than to the American loan, Bretton Woods and the future commercial arrangements all put together. We had the Second Reading in one day; Select Committee upstairs; Committee of the Whole House one day and so much of today's proceedings as the Report stage and Third Reading will consume.
We sent it up to the Select Committee because it was a hybrid Bill, and it was necessary to see whether private rights and public rights were both safeguarded. There, it was Clause 1 which was mostly at issue, because that was the Clause which most directly affected any private rights. The Clause decrees that the whole existing stock is to be transferred to a nominee of the Treasury, and that Government stock will be issued, redeemable at par, on Government option, in 20 years or later. This is what the Chancellor of the Exchequer called '' merely an exchange of bits of paper." So far as the existing stockholders are concerned, for the next 20 years they will receive the same income as they had received for Bank of England stock, in the last 22 years.
The difficulty about this transaction is that none of us can say whether it is a good or a bad bargain, either for the stockholders or for the State, for the simple reason that, at no stage in the proceedings has any disclosure been made of the reserves held by the Bank. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Second Reading Debate said that, in his view, the terms of compensation
 are … fair to the shareholders, and, on the other hand, undoubtedly a good bargain for the State." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th Oct. 1945, Vol. 4T5, c 47.] 
But on Monday he changed his mind and said that, on second thoughts, they were perhaps a shade too generous to the stockholders. He gave us no reason why his opinion between October and December should have changed, and, of course, for all we know, in the absence of full knowledge, it may be that the terms are too generous to the State. The unfortunate fact is that on this point Parliament has to decide the issue without knowing all the facts. But I think we can take it that perhaps the most important view on this subject is the view which was expressed by the Governor of the Bank who stated his own private opinion to the Select Committee. He said:
In my- opinion the price stated in this Bill (and I only give this to you as my own personal opinion) is a fair and reasonable price for both sides.
Well, the Governor knows the full position, the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows the full position, but the Commons of England do not. They are invited to pass this Bill without being fully aware of


all the considerations. That, in itself, is a flaw. But we recognise that under this first Clause, which is the nationalisation Clause—provided the terms of Subsection (4) are carried out, that is that an annual sum of £873,180 is paid by the Bank to the State and neither more nor less, and provided that the same sum is paid out by the State to the holders of Government stock—there will be no financial gain to the State, unless, of course, it is the deliberate intention eventually to exact from the Bank—as can be done under the Bill—a greater sum than is necessary for servicing the Government stock, so taking advantage of a possibility which my hon. Friend the Member for St. George's, Westminster (Mr. Howard) pointed out, of making the Bank become, in a way, a help to the Exchequer, in the same way as the telephones and other public services are used for taxation purposes.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has been good enough to give us quotations from Mr. Gladstone, Lord Home, Earl Lloyd-George, Lord Norman and Mr. Leaf, but he did not give us anything from his own colleague, Lord Pethick-Lawrence who, in the middle of the Election—not 70 years ago but on 25th June this year, as reported in "The Evening Despatch" of the next day, said in dealing with nationalisation of the Bank:
It is already very largely a Department of the Treasury.
That was an awkward one for the argument which has been put forward to us. 1 hope the Chancellor will remember this one when he next sees his Noble Friend:
If it is nationalised it would not make a pennyworth of difference to the bulk of the people in the country.
This is the great reform which is necessary. And in the view of the chief financial expert of the Government—apart from the present Chancellor, of course—it is not going to make a pennyworth of difference. I take "pennyworth" as meaning financial difference and, therefore, all these speeches about how necessary it is to get the Bank in order that the profits should go to the people, do not go far. To Clause 1, therefore, we are opposed. We do not know all the facts, and we do not see that a useful purpose is to be served by this transfer from private to public ownership.
Clauses 2 and 3 I pass over, except to say that I am sorry we inserted Amend-

ments in Clause 3 which indicated that the charter might not be ready in time for the Bank to function under the new system and that it might be necessary to keep portions of the old charter in being was disappointed when the Financial Secretary to the Treasury put that Amendment into the Bill because, after all, the Bill is not likely to be enacted before February and there are three months available before deciding upon the Appointed Day. It seems to me that November, December, January, February, March and April ought to be long enough lime in which to draw up a new charter. It would make for tidiness and I hope, therefore, that the Amendments we inserted will, in the end, prove to be a dead letter.
Of course, having dealt with the nationalisation issue, the really contentious part is Clause 4. It is almost by nature a "tacking" Clause, because it has really no relevance to the assets of the Bank. But it is a very dangerous Clause as it now stands. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) when he was winding up the Debate on the Second Reading, said he was then opposing the Bill, not because it was dangerous, but because it was a sham. He said that, because we were in hopes that it would be possible to improve this Clause. Having failed in our attempts, it remains a dangerous Clause. There is always a risk of formalising something which, in the past, has worked well, and these powers of direction have in them an element of great danger to the banking system of this country. It is true that in Committee, and again this afternoon, certain safeguards have been introduced—I should say about one and a half. One perfectly good safeguard is that the affairs of a particular customer are not to be subject to requests or recommendations. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself foreshadowed that Amendment on Second Reading, so that quite early in the proceedings he saw the Clause went too far. The Amendment we have inserted today giving an opportunity of representation, I rate at about half a safeguard, because it is one thing to make representations, but another to ensure that they will be successful.
In fact, the Chancellor has adopted a very good technique. He has not followed his colleague the President of the Board of Trade in having working parties


but has the chairmen of the banks to a tea party and works on them to such an extent that they accept his assurances. The right hon. Gentleman made a statement on Monday of how he proposed to act, but I cannot help remembering that it is only the right hon. Gentleman's personal assurance, and that his successors may not care about what he said and what is recorded in HANDARD. Indeed, I am all the more nervous when I remember the cavalier way in which he treated. the question of postwar credits in the Finance Bill, contrary, in my view, to the assurances his then colleague in the Coalition Government, Sir Kingsley Wood, gave. However, he has granted the right of representation for what it is worth, and, therefore, to that extent, has slightly improved this Clause.
But, we cannot get away from it, the Clause does give very full powers to the Treasury, and it has been intended to do so, however much the speeches have wrapped up the intention. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may not wish, or intend, to use the power to their fullest extent, though even of that I am not quite so sure. The Treasury can give its directions to the banks, but the banks are brought by this Bill into a very new relationship to the Bank of England. We have failed in all our attempts we tried to insert safeguards, and so, as the Bill leaves us, the position is that the Bank of England can force other bankers to give credit to favoured classes; it can force other bankers to subscribe to shares that they do not want; it can force other bankers to purchase assets that they do not require, and it can force other bankers to sell assets they do not wish to sell. As one of my hon. Friends pointed out, by being able to distinguish between classes of customers, they might be forced to give credit to the co-operative societies and to refuse credit to small shopkeepers as a class.
All this sort of thing, which is inherent in the Bill as we now have it, does interfere with what has hitherto been the relationship of a banker with his shareholders and customers in his fiduciary capacity. It is true, I grant, that in the latter cases the initiative is with the Bank of England, but, on the other hand, it is equally true that the Treasury can give the Bank of England directions, and therefore the

Chancellor, as he said earlier, is master of the situation. Here is a great power of interference with our existing banking system. I would only say that some hon. Members do not seem to object to the present system, and I would call in aid the Minister of Fuel and Power who, in his recent book called "The Britain that I Want '' wrote:
 So far as the great joint stock tanks are concerned, there is a great deal to admire in the precision with which they transact their day to day business.
That is going to be interfered with. The hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Mr. A. Edwards), speaking in this House on 7th July, 1943—much more recent than Mr. Gladstone—said:
 Whatever system we may have in the future, we have today the soundest and safest banking system in the world, and I do not want to alter it in the slightest unless we discover something much better." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th July, 1943; Vol. 390. c. 2151.] 
I observe that the hon. Gentleman did not vote on the Second Reading of the Bill. It just shows that this interference is making great changes, and not changes for the better, and that is why we are opposing this Clause. The whole reason for it, and, indeed, the reason for the whole Bill, is to accord with the nostrums of the Socialist Party and the almost Mesopotamian incantation of the word "plan." Indeed, these directions are not necessary. Again, I would like to put on record the evidence of the Governor on this subject to the Select Committee. He was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for St. George's whether, in his experience, any information had ever been refused to him by the Banks. He said:
 I can reply to that most frankly. I have never been refused. Sometimes it has taken a lot of persuasion, but that is a different matter. I was asked on one occasion how we dealt with the financial community in the great banks of the City, and I said that we tried to persuade them. I was then asked ' Well, supposing your powers of persuasion fail, what happens then? ' I said, ' We just keep at the persuasion and sooner or later they give in '.
He was then asked:
In fact, your powers of persuasion have not failed? 
and he replied:
 No." 
In reply to the next question he said:
 Within my experience, the powers of persuasion have always been effective.


If, through the difficult days of the war, those powers of persuasion were sufficient, there is no reason to suppose that they will not be adequate in the future. Indeed, no evidence whatever has been produced that the Bank of England has pursued a policy contrary to the Government of the day. On Monday, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury informed us of the various requests which had been made during the war, both by Lord Simon and by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson). There was no question that those requests were carried out. When, in a slightly ebullient moment just now, the Financial Secretary said never again would the working of the Labour Party be stultified by the City, I would ask, when was it stultified? In 1931 the then Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Governor of the Bank of England were working in perfect harmony in dealing with the problems with which they were faced. It may not have suited some of the extremists in the Labour Party, but, so far as one can judge, with regard to the Governor and the then Chancellor, harmony existed, although it must have been difficult to have harmony with Lord Snowden.

Mr. Kirkwood: Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give way for a moment?

Captain Crookshank: No. If I may sum up I would say —

Mr. Kirkwood: What the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has said is not true.

Captain Crookshank: The hon. Gentleman can make a speech afterwards, and contradict what I have said. To sum up, I would say this. As my right hon. Friend pointed out the other day, and as we all agree, the Bank of England is a unique institution. It is not an ordinary central bank. It has an international status far exceeding that of any other bank in the world. All the tradition behind it, and all the flexibility are wiped away by this Bill, and it is brought into a wretched statutory form, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer as the real Governor. All this, for what purpose? It is for one purpose only, and that is to demonstrate to the supporters of the

Socialist Party that in the first six months of existence, the Socialist Government have carried out one of their election promises—just one. Are there more houses? No. Has there been quicker demobilisation? No. Such deviations as are now being made are entirely the result of pressure from this side of the House. Is there more food, are there more clothes?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is departing from the Bill.

Captain Crookshank: With great respect, I was just coming to an end. I was explaining why this Bill was brought in, and that seemed to me to be very relevant. None of these things have been carried out, but the Chancellor can say to his followers: "You can go home, boys, for Christmas, and tell them that the Bank of England Bill is through the House of Commons." If they get any satisfaction out of that, they can do so, but we on this side of the House entirely reject the Bill. We think it is a bad Bill, and we shall vote against it. It is quite true that our numbers are insufficient to defeat the Bill, but we shall vote against it. We can only hope, for the sake of the nation, that our forbodings will not be realised but, if I may use a colloquialism, "What a hope."

4.38 p.m.

Mr. Kirkwood: I wish to refer to a statement made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), which was, in fact, a misstatement. He said that in 1931 the then Chancellor of the Exchequer was working harmoniously with the Bank of England. He may have been, but at that time we in this House drew attention to the fact—and well the right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows it—that the Bank of England intimated to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Philip Snowden, that they wanted a rise in their percentage, and that they would not give what they had been asked to give, unless they got that increase. At the same time, we engineers were moving heaven and earth to get an increase in wages, but there was no increase for us. The terms of the Bank of England were an increase of one per cent. The result was that they got it, and Philip Snowden got a gold casket from the City of London.

4.40 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: I was not able to be present at the Second Reading of this Bill, but I naturally went through the Report of the Debate with great care, studying, in particular, the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that occasion, and, of course, I also read the graphic descriptions in the Press of the enthusiastic scenes—the flourish of trumpets and the flourish of the election manifesto at what appeared to be an almost episcopal entry on the part of the right hon. Gentleman accompanied by the appropriate escort of acolytes and vestal Fabian virgins, all of whom appeared to be chanting with enthusiasm their processional hymn, "We have a mandate." What a different scene confronts us this afternoon.

Mr. Dalton: The Opposition has collapsed; that is why.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: The massed Socialist brass bands which played the triumphal march on that occasion have today petered out with an untuneful obligato on the Financial Secretary's piccolo. This Third Reading Debate is an occasion of bathos and of pathos, if I may say so. Where arc the serried ranks of cheering Members greeting the passage of this first Measure of nationalisation? The fact is—and hon. Members opposite know it better than anybody else—that the House has been wasting its time completely. The Bill never had much relation to fact, anyhow. After the events of last week it has none at all.

Mr. Gibson: What is all the bother about?

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: If the hon. Gentleman will listen, I am endeavouring to tell him. I was saying that the Bill never had much relation to reality, and now it has none. My reason for saying it is this. Controlled currency and planned economy, the control of investments and the State direction of credits have been sold down the river— the Potomac River—last week. At this season of good will, I can only sympathise with hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne): May I ask a question? With regard to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's last sentence, would he tell the House what he would have done on the

Second Reading if the events of last week had not occurred? Are we to understand that if this agreement had never been made the hon. and gallant Member would have accompanied us into the Division Lobby on the Government side?

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: With your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if I am in Order —

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and gallant Gentleman would be out of Order.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: No one regrets that more than I, with the possible exception of the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he will see me afterwards. When I was interrupted I was endeavouring to introduce a seasonable note into my observations, and to remark that I can only sympathise with hon. Members opposite who came here last August with such high hopes. This, after all, is a fitting financial prelude to the first Socialist Christmas. As the right hon. Gentlemen opposite and their supporters consume on 25th December their meagre rations, huddled over such scanty fuel as they are allowed to use, I hope they will charge their glasses with non-existent wassail and say to one another, in that spirit of comradeship, which so endears them to their supporters:
 God's in His Heaven— 
All's right with the world.
" The Bank of England has been nationalised, the sign of the almighty dollar has been hoisted in Threadneedle Street. Let us drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die."

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Norman Smith: I am sorry for the party opposite. Not even the somewhat overdrawn analogies of the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) alter the fact that on this side of the House we have the very best of reasons for desiring this legislation. If the hon. and gallant Member is building his hopes on the events of last week I can assure him that, from my knowledge of the River Potomac, at least five years are going to elapse before the tides of that river are going to flow to the full, and there will be no bore down that river during that time; and meanwhile many defences will be erected by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Boothby: May I ask the hon. Member to what kind of bore he refers?

Mr. Smith: It was not a reference to the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness. I was saying that I regard this as one of the occasions when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is at his very best. When he is good, he is very, very good; but my reputation for balanced judgment requires me to add that when he is bad, he is by no means so good as he might be.
The right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) has abandoned the indefensible position which he used to take up, that the Bill did not make any difference anyhow. Instead of that, we now have it on his authority that the Bill is thoroughly bad and dangerous. He quoted with some effect what was said by Lord Pethick-Lawrence when a Member of this House. I am going to rely upon my memory in quoting also from the present Lord Pethick-Lawrence. It will be a quotation which I am sure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will remember, because it was made in this House about two years ago on the occasion of a Debate upon a Finance Bill. On that occasion, Lord Pethick-Lawrence told this House that our wartime experience had taught us that the capacity of a country to produce—that is to say the capacity of its industries to produce output—depended not, upon financial considerations but upon physical considerations, that is to say upon the skill of its workers, the technical knowledge of the industry, the raw material and the factory capacity. As Lord Pethick-Lawrence put it, we must cut our coat according to our cloth, but it is an economic cloth and not a financial cloth.
That is the whole reason for the introduction of the Bill. The experience of the country between the two wars, admirably summed up by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary in the two words "Norman Conquest," was that not merely were workmen in idleness but technical skill was allowed to go without any work and allowed to rot. Factory capacity and land were permitted to be idle. These productive resources were idle because one individual in the City of London was able to say, "There is no money.' That can never happen again, thanks to the application of this Bill.
I want to give the party opposite one consolation. It is that if, in the years to come, when they are still occupying those benches, as they will be, they find that in this country there is a state of affairs in which men or productive capacity are idle for lack of money, they will be able to blame His Majesty's Ministers sitting on the Government Front Bench here, and no one else. The Bill will, at any rate, have done that for them. Their job as critics will be easier than our job was in between the two wars, when the power did not lie in this House but lay elsewhere. The right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough has a wonderful genius for talking at considerable length about the less important aspects of whatever Measure happens to be before the House. I can conceive nothing of greater insignificance than the mere question of the profits of the Bank of England. What does it matter if the shareholders get a lot of profit or a little? Who cares? Personally, I do not grudge any bank shareholders their profit. It is not a question of profit being made or not being made. What is important is that there is power under the Bill to regulate the rate of output of the industries of the country, and that the power lies where it ought to have lain long ago, namely, in this democratically elected House of Commons.
I can envisage certain changes happening as the result of Clause 4. I regard the Bill as so important as to be almost revolutionary. It gives tremendous power to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Why should not the Treasury be able to direct the commercial banks? If any hon. Members opposite care to read the Macmillan Report they will find in paragraph 71 that the Bank of England has power very substantially to increase or to decrease the amount of circulating currency in the country, merely by its open-market operations. If the Bank buys gold, the Bank gets the gold for nothing, merely by writing out a draft on itself. If the Bank buys securities, it gets those securities for nothing in the same way. When the Bank buys securities and it buys them with a draft on itself, that draft becomes cash, so far as the commercial banks are concerned, and they lend at the rate of 10 to 1 on the amount of extra cash brought into existence by the open-market operations of the Bank of England.
In other words, every time the Bank of England creates, out of nothing, £1 and adds it to the circulating currency of the country, the commercial banks proceed to multiply that £1 by 10 and they put £10 of currency into circulation. The law of this country deals very harshly indeed with a forger, but after all, what does the forger do? He merely proposes a little illegal and unauthorised addition to the circulating currency. Much the same thing is done by coiners. Coiners, forgers and bankers are all in the same business. The Bill proposes that the Government should control the operations of bankers, who create out of nothing money which is circulated by cheque from one bank account to another as the currency of the country. It is about time that the Bill came into operation. If the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough still does not appreciate the reasons for the Bill, let him read the melancholy history of the industrial depression in the period between the two wars.
I desire to make two suggestions to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer before I sit down. Soon the Bill will be an Act of Parliament. The £1 notes and 10s. notes will pass from hand to hand after the Bank of England has been nationalised, just as they do now. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he should take an early opportunity of arranging, directing or suggesting, it does not much matter how, that the £1 and 10s. notes shall have on the back of them an engraving of this House of Parliament and not of the 18th century Bank of England premises. I further suggest that on the front of those notes there should be a portrait of His Majesty, which the currency of the country ought to have. It was the party opposite which, in 1928, in the Currency and Bank Notes Act, took the effigy of His Majesty from off the £1 and 10s. notes, a change which I personally regretted and one which I hope will be restored.
My second suggestion is that we should put an end to the rather foolish spectacle of a body of guardsmen marching from their barracks to the Bank of England—

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: On a point of Order. May I ask what guardsmen marching from their barracks have to do with the Third Reading of the Bank of England Bill?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I was waiting to see in what way the hon. Member developed his argument and how they came into the picture.

Mr. Smith: The question is of comparatively little importance. I am afraid I was sharing the guilt of the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough and beginning to discuss something of trifling importance. I could not resist the temptation. If I have done wrong, I withdraw. The Bill is a charter of freedom for the English people. The House of Commons in passing this Bill is doing the right thing. We have been told that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are going to take this matter to a Division. Very well, we shall then have a black list of Members of this House who want to go back to the bad old days when output in our industries depended, not upon human skill and factory capacity for production, but merely on rows of figures in a book manipulated by private interests to suit themselves.

4.55 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Nigel Birch: I always like to hear the hon. Member for South Nottingham (Mr. N. Smith), although I cannot always agree with some of the things he says. I must confess that the Douglas credit scheme wearies me. I wish the hon. Member would take up the wholemeal bread question. So far as the Bill goes, we probed into all its dismal details in Committee stage, and I must confess that that increased, rather than lessened my distaste for it. It goes against the principle in which we on this side of the House believe, which is that the onus of proof in making a change lies with the Government who are making the change. That is to say, that the Government have to prove that an institution has worked badly, and that what they are proposing to put in its place will work more effectively and better. Such proof has been conspicuously lacking. All we have had has been a mandate and, of course, a mandate is not an argument of any sort whatever. I believe that, as the years go by, hon. Gentlemen opposite will increasingly realise the value of that Conservative principle.
I take a slightly different view from that of some of my hon. Friends here. I believe that Clause 4 will actually reduce the power of the State. The Bank of England now has absolute power in the


City provided it acts reasonably. They have only had to express half a wish in the past, and it has been granted. I believe the Bill reduces the power of a reasonable Chancellor and increases the power of a unreasonable Chancellor. I regret that it will decrease those powers because it has been a matter of delicate psychological adjustment in the City. Now it will be a matter of dealing directly with the State. The State always does provoke a certain measure of opposition. If you touch a bunch of grapes, some of the bloom comes off. That is what is going to happen. The real, valuable power that will be needed is going to be given up. The real reason this Bill is being put forward is not so much this matter of the mandate. The reason why this proposal was put into the mandate is that nationalisation of the Bank of England is a ritual punishment of the scapegoat for the errors and misfortunes of 1931. I have no doubt that hon. Gentlemen opposite have great need of psychological displacement of their sense of guilt, I suggest that what they should be looking for is a scapegoat for the errors and misfortunes of 1949.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. I. J. Pitman: I oppose the Bill because it takes away that most precious thing in all British institutions, the free association of people working freely and beneficially together. It seems to me, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Flint (Lieut.-Colonel Birch) said, that it actually reduces the power of the Government in that respect by a double, and very unnecessary, double-locking of the door.
There are two main parts of the Bill. One deals with ownership and the other with management. With regard to ownership there is by Clause 1 an interference with the free association of the proprietors working freely and properly together. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has already pointed out how, by the past wisdom of this Parliament in the granting of Acts of Parliament and Charters, we have ensured that there should not be irresponsible interference by the proprietors with the proper management of the banks. I was a holder voluntarily of the Bank of England Stock and I shall become a holder of the Government Stock, not because I want to but because my

freedom has been limited thereby and my holding prescribed for me. I can only either remain a holder of these new shares or I can sell them out in a free market and obtain something else instead.
Not however content with acquiring the powers of controlling the Bank of England which he will enjoy as the sole proprietor under Clause 1, the Chancellor under Clause 4 makes a further and, as I see it, unnecessary and vicious interference with this most precious and truly British principle of the free association of people working freely together. In the control of the Governors and Directors of the Bank which is given under Clause 4 (1), he is seeking to obtain what appears to be a mischievous and unnecessary addition to his powers as sole proprietor. It has already been admitted by the proprietors in Committee, and by the Chancellor himself, that there has been a very close and happy association between the Treasury and the Bank, and indeed there would have to be this close association. I think we might reject as antediluvian history what Gladstone or even Lloyd George said. Ever since this country has ceased working on a gold basis freely, this close association has been absolutely essential because the ultimate validity of the currency has rested solely on authority, which ultimately rests on this House. Accordingly there has since been and had to be a close and very friendly relationship between the Treasury and the Bank of England. At no stage in the proceedings over this Bill has it been authoritatively alleged that such free and proper association between Treasury and Bank has been in conflict with the wishes of the Chancellor of the day in the recent past.
If the Chancellor has been getting his own way in the past and if the Chancellor already has through ownership the control of that institution; if he has a Governor and Deputy-Governor who may be turned out or not re-elected in five years, and similarly a court of directors a quarter of whom will come up for election each year, another quarter in two years and so on, if all this, why does the Chancellor wish for the further control under this Clause? I submit that the only reason is that hon. Members opposite have put the Bank up as "big bogey number one," and that they wish to give justification for the past, a penal kick for the


present, and a threat for the future. Secondly I think it arises out of their sheer love of control for control's sake, and out of an envious hatred of anything which is free and working properly under freedom. They dislike to see free association working well and smoothly in freedom. If, in place of an association of free people producing a good result, they cannot substitute forcible direction, they like to put in some power which could be invoked at any time, so that they can say that the good work is being done freely not because of the good sense and motives of those concerned, but rather because there is a power of compulsion in the background. Thirdly, I think it is a matter of personal vanity. The Chancellor likes to be in a position in which, when the Governor of the Bank comes to the Treasury, he must come as one who has no option other than to agree freely or to agree under this compulsion; the Governor's only possible protest is resignation. I listened very carefully during the Committee stage, and the way in which the proposal for laying regulations before Parliament as a half way stage to resignation of Governor and Director was opposed by the Chancellor showed to me quite clearly that the Chancellor wished to force upon the Governors and Directors the position of having no defensive weapon whatsoever other than resignation.
Clause 4 (1) is, I would thus contend, bad in principle. It is also bad in expediency. Under the present dispensations the Chancellor and the Bank got the best of both worlds, but now it seems that they may easily find themselves in international entanglements. The Bank of England acts sometimes as the banker for some nation like Czechoslovakia, or as the banker for some international bank such as the Bank for International Settlements, or Bretten Woods when it comes along. In the past it was quite possible for the Bank and the Treasury to be separate entities and so the Bank could deny the return of gold to Czechoslovakia without embroiling the Government and this nation politically, but under these present proposals the Government by taking power to issue directions are dangerously taking the responsibility on their own shoulders and denying to themselves the opportunity of the Banks independence which they are otherwise maintaining.

They will find themselves embroiling the Foreign Office with the Bank of England and the Bank of England with foreign politics and affairs. That, it seems to me, is wholly stupid, very damaging, and potentially dangerous, and it is a point which I should strongly recommend to the Chancellor that he should look at again, and most carefully.
Clause 4 (3) whereby he takes powers to have directions issued to the joint stock banks is to my mind particularly inept, and its presentation to the Committee of this House was very inept also. The Chancellor failed to make the distinction between positive and negative control. He talked about priorities and about the long purse coming first in the affairs of the joint stock banks and other bankers. Let us recognise that if the Government want to pump out money and make it available, there is nothing whatsoever to prevent them from doing it now, through the Bank of England which they will then own. They do not need the clearing banks and smaller banks to do it. Let them realise that they can set up finance corporations and turn out as much money as they want; with their ownership and control of the Bank of England this will clearly be possible even if it was not possible—which it was— when the close association between the Treasury and the Bank were the means of bringing it about. There is no necessity whatsoever for the addition of the joint stock banks to the Bank of England. Do we consider that they will not wish to lend the money if the Bank of England will supply it? After all, there is no shortage of means for credit, and there is not likely to be any shortage of credit for some time, and, if there is, the Bank of England can, freely or under directions from the Treasury, make credit available through the joint stock banks. Are we really suggesting that the latter would not wish to make credit available if the Bank of England gave it to them and asked them to do it? or that the Bank of England could not make it available if in default? No, on the positive issue of making credit available there has been and there will be no difficulty. If however it is suggested that when that has been done there will be securities so rocky or with rate of interest so unattractive that not even the finance corporations formed by the Government or the Bank of England will provide the credit, that


the joint stock banks should be forced to provide it—we may surely say that these powers ought not to be used. They appear thus to be wholly wrong.
On the negative side, again I think the Chancellor was inept in his presentation and did not make the House or the Committee fully understand the position. Banks are for the service of the community; they only reflect, they do not create, the atmosphere of that community. Their desire is the desire of Eve, their desire is of their customers. If customers do not come in and want to borrow they are powerless. The negative function of restricting credit can operate only when the customers are trying to borrow more than the banks and the Government think ought to be lent out. The Banks then have to restrict an over optimistic community. In times of boom everybody is optimistic or over-optimistic and they are the electors; it is the bankers and the Government who wish to restrict credit. In the past this restriction has been very difficult and to place squarely on the shoulders of the Government powers to direct the banks to resist restrictions is not making restriction easier but more difficult. Remember that this power to direct makes this House subject to pressure from vocal optimists who do not want to leave credit restricted at a time when there will be no support from the non-vocal pessimists. The addition of this power of direction when the whole electorate is watching is not in any way adding to the control over the financial machine. It is actually taking away from it, because the customer, as a result, has not only the power which he has as a customer over a bank, but also the power which he has as an elector to influence the House of Commons to direct the Bank. Just as in relation to financial arrangements between the Bank and foreign Governments or international banking institutions, the interposition of the political element is clearly wrong. Does the Bank need these powers? The right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) read out not the best bit from the Minutes of Evidence in Select Committee. I think one of the most effective bits was the reply of Lord Catto to the hon. Member for South Leeds (Mr. Gaitskell):
 We have never failed to get the banks to

do what was wanted. I think it would not be very easy for me to go into details of these matters.
Clearly, that is the case. It has never been difficult for the Bank of England to get the other bankers to co-operate. It ought indeed to be certain that the Banks will freely do what they are asked. After all, we have to remember that they know much better than the investing public that a slump is likely to follow a boom. If people are trying to borrow money from them and they are seeking to restrict that borrowing, they have always had in the Bank a very strong ally. More than that, they have to look to the Bank to help them through the stormy period which follows. The natural strength of the Bank is very great indeed in enforcing its action in this negative direction and there is thus as little need in the negative as there is in the positive for any directing powers. Credit control has been in the hands of the Treasury and with ownership by the Treasury of the Bank of England the further directing powers are solely harmful.
The final point I want to emphasise is that the Chancellor seems to be determined to force this double locking of the door. Not content with owning and controlling the financial machine, he wishes to doublelock it, and as I see it, to get himself in a very bad mess in the process. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) has said that Bills can never fall at one time into the three categories of being wrong in principle, being unnecessary, and being inexpedient in practice. All I can say is that this Bill must therefore be a very bad one, because it is all those three things.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the hon. Member against the Bill?

Mr. Pitman: I am against the Bill. In the first place, the Bill is wrong in principle because it takes away something good, the freedom of people to work freely and do a good job because they wish to do it. Secondly, the Bill is unnecessary because on all sides it is agreed that the full powers which the Treasury has had have worked in such a way that the country has had the financial policy of the Chancellors of the Exchequer whom it has put into power. Thirdly, the Bill will work badly in practice because not content with matters of policy it injects politics into the working of the financial machine


and the financial detail into the political machine.

5.17 p.m.

Mr. Boothby: Having addressed the House recently on two occasions and detained hon. Members for over 30 minutes on each occasion, I propose to confine my speech now to three minutes. I rise only for the purpose of saying '' Hail and fare-well." Because I believe that the power to create and issue money should be formally vested in the State, I voted for the Second Reading of this Bill. In the present circumstances, it seems hardly to have been worth while. In the Debate on the Motion of Censure the Prime Minister referred to the fact that he was agreeably surprised by the quietness with which this transfer of economic power had been made; and that it had passed through the House so easily from Threadneedle Street to Whitehall. Although the party to which I belong has put up quite an effective opposition against the formal transfer of power, that transfer of power has admittedly gone through, with the assistance of the Government's large majority, comparatively smoothly and with great celerity, and with comparative quietude; but I would like to point out that the subsequent transfer of power from Whitehall to Washington has gone through with even greater celerity, although there have been a certain number of squawks from both sides. It remains only for me to express my regret that the sojourn of economic power in Whitehall should have been so brief and so uneventful. We on this side of the House will now watch with considerable interest how it fares on the other side of the Atlantic.

Mr. David Jones: Is the hon. Member proud of the part his party played in the alleged transfer of power to Washington?

Mr. Boothby: I am always proud of my party.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Howard: If any excuse were required for intervening in this Debate, it would be the words used by the Financial Secretary that the passage of this Bill marks an epoch, and that its importance cannot be over-estimated. The Bill does not cause me undue dismay—it would require more than this Bill to cause me dismay—but it does fill me with genuine and profound disappointment. My disappointment arises

for this reason. There was considerable controversy during the General Election about the type of Measure that might be produced to deal with the Bank of England. In the Debate on the Address after Parliament had met, my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) said that in his opinion the national ownership of the Bank of England did not raise any matter of principle. I subscribed wholly to that statement and I had hoped that that being agreed, all that we would have had to deal with would have been the question of the test method and manner of achieving the change of ownership. The reason I am so disappointed is that I honestly believe that, the matter of principle being out of the way, if the Chancellor had paid a little more attention to the genuine fears expressed on this side and had given rather more consideration to the constructive suggestions we put forward for improving the Bill, there could have been an agreed Measure. It would have been in the highest national interest if what had started out as a highly controversial Measure could have gone forward as practically an agreed Bill. I believe that was possible, and I believe the only reason it was not attained was the rigidity and obstinacy with which the Chancellor, while paying lipservice to the points that were made, refused, or found himself unable, to translate them into suitable words in the Bill.
If I may be forgiven for coming to the Bill itself, and not be ruled out of Order for so doing—I have noticed that a great many words have been used in this Debate which did not appear to arise directly from the Bill—I think we need not worry any more about the case put forward regarding the mandate for this Bill, because that is not in the Bill. The other case that has been put forward for the Bill is that it is logical. Perhaps insufficient attention has been paid to the merits of the Clauses of the Bill, particularly in relation to the extent to which they carry out the alleged reasons for the Bill as set out in the Preamble. In my opinion, the Clauses of the Bill go far beyond the Preamble. As to logic, the case that has been made for the Bill has been "Here is a state of affairs in existence; let us now translate it into legislative form." That really has been the whole case for the Bill.
With regard to Clause 1, which deals with compensation, I think the basis on which the Government have decided to arrange compensation is reasonable, as is also the manner in which it is applied. I regret that the Chancellor did not see his way to exclude that portion of the Subsection dealing with the rise and fall in payments from the Bank to the Treasury, but as that matter has already been mentioned in the Debate, I need not elaborate upon it. On Clause 2, which deals with the new directorate of the Bank, I think it is unfortunate that the Chancellor has not yet told us what are the intentions of the Government with regard to the appointment of the whole-time directors. These whole-time directors will necessarily occupy key positions, and it is very difficult to determine whether it would be better for them to be appointed by the Treasury or by the Court of the Bank. The Chancellor has failed entirely to tell us which of those courses it is proposed to follow.
As for Clause 3, which deals with the charters, I deeply regret that apparently the Government have not found it possible to consolidate these measures. What new Members unaccustomed to legislation by reference suffer from in this respect is almost indescribable. Here was an opportunity of getting into one document all that was necessary, and apparently the opportunity is to go by default.

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is there not a Rule of Order about what it is possible to refer to in a Third Reading Debate? I thought that an hon. Member could only talk about what is in the Bill, and not what ought to be in it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): That is true, but it is open to the Chair to allow a certain amount of latitude.

Mr. Howard: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) will notice that the charter is referred to in the Clause.

Mr. Silverman: Was not the hon. Member talking about what was not in the Clause?

Captain Crookshank: Is it not the case that my hon. Friend was referring to

Clause 3, Subsection 3, where there is a reference to
So much of the said charters as remains unrcvoked.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think the hon. Member might be allowed to continue his speech, and I will call him to Order if necessary.

Mr. Howard: The point I was making was that I think the position is unsatisfactory. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, when dealing with this Clause in Committee, dealt with it in his usual manner of somewhat bewildered innocence. Within five minutes he made three distinct and contrary statements as to what were the intentions of the Government. He said that the charter:
 is now being drafted, and it will come into operation on the appointed day.
A few seconds later he said:
 It might be that the Charter will not come into operation on the appointed day.
And a minute and a half later, he said:
 The expectation is that it will be ready, but perhaps it will not." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, J945; Vol. 417, c. 969–970.]
All those statements are recorded on one page of the Official Report. I submit that when a statement of that character is made in Committee from the Front Bench in support of a Clause, the Committee are not being treated with the respect to which they are entitled. Clause 4 contains the real brunt of the Bill. I think it would be ungracious not to welcome the fact that the Chancellor saw his way to bring forward an Amendment which went some Way towards meeting our criticisms, although it did not go the whole way. This Clause provides that the Treasury shall have powers to issue directions to the Bank of England and that the Bank of England, if authorised by the Treasury, shall have powers to issue directions to other bankers. I was unable to catch the eye of Mr. Speaker on a previous occasion, and, therefore, I was unable to raise the point of, what is another banker. There is a definition Clause in this Bill which leaves it entirely open to the Treasury to determine who, and what, is a banker for this purpose. That seems to me undesirable and rather dangerous and I should have thought that it was possible to have had some statement from the Chancellor on what a banker is.
I am not a lawyer nor a banker, but I believe that there are, in existing


Statutes, definitions of what a banker is, and we are entitled to ask why a new, completely wide-open door is introduced which allows the Treasury to define a banker for the purpose of this Bill. Why is that power introduced, if a definition of a banker is already in existence in some existing Statute. [Interruption.] I am afraid that I did not hear that observation, and, as I. am not a learned Gentleman I would probably have been unable to cope with it. No doubt there are learned Gentlemen in the House who would have been able to cope with it. I suggest that the main case for this Bill was based on alleged logic. The Chancellor has claimed that he is getting powers to do this and that. He has said that he needs those powers, and he has strongly resisted any attempt to restrict those powers. To what do those powers amount? Counsel presenting the case for the proposals of the Government before the Selection Committee used these words:
There is no sanction brought in by the Bill to say that if such a request or direction is not complied with any legal consequences are to follow to the person who does not comply with it.
I suggest, with due respect, that here is a complete fraud. The Chancellor is re-fusing to accept any diminution of powers. He is claiming for the benefit of his supporters and the public at large, that he is obtaining wide powers and that he needs them. Learned counsel briefed for the Government informs the Select Committee that there is no legal sanction behind these powers at all. Where is the logic of such a case? In a previous Debate the Chancellor, in referring to the private stockholder, used the phrase that the private stockholder was either "an absurdity "or "a menace," and he left it to hon. Members to select which of those terms they cared. The Chancellor, in this Bill, has founded himself on logic. He has asked for powers. Counsel for the Government have said that there is no legal sanction behind the powers contained in this Bill.
In those circumstances it is fair to describe these particular Clauses as both absurd and a menace. Obviously they are absurd, and the menace lies in the fact that there can be no purpose in them, unless that purpose is something which has not as yet been disclosed to the House. I think that the case for logic

goes entirely by the board. I do not, however, wish to base myself on logic entirely; there are more important things than that. The Chancellor may say that economics are more important, but that does not matter. To remind him of that charming book of Stevenson's, "An Inland Voyage," he may remember that at one of those villages where the writer stopped, he came across a very talkative Frenchman, who was perhaps almost as talkative as I am, who concluded every dogmatic statement by saying, "It is logic." Stevenson's comment on that—if I can remember it, and I am quoting from memory—was," It is not a strong thing to rely on logic, and particularly one's own logic, because it is usually wrong." He then added, "There is an upright stock in a man's own heart which is trustier than any syllogism."
I think that after the passage of this Bill we shall have to rely mainly upon hope; upon the hope that the Chancellor and his advisers, in their administration of this Bill, will show greater wisdom and consideration than they have in its preparation and passage through this House. I hope that in that process of administration, in spite of his blunt and somewhat obstinate exterior, which sometimes appears almost menacing, he will not allow that to overrule his finer feelings and he will be guided by the "upright stock" which perhaps is hidden somewhere within him.

5.38 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Hamilton: When this Bill was discussed on Second Reading, hon. Members opposite spoke with two voices. One voice said, "It is a most pernicious Bill," and the other voice said, "This Bill makes no difference whatsoever to anything and it is a waste of time considering it." In other words, they were sitting there carefully balanced on a fence, and did not know on which side to come down. Since that time, the Bill has been through many processes. No doubt all of them are necessary, though they are somewhat puzzling to new Members like myself. One would have thought that in all those processes, the Opposition would have had time to make up their mind on which side of the fence they really were going to come down.
It is interesting that here at the very last stage we still find the same two voices coming to us from the other side. In


fact, judging also by last week, this habit of carefully balancing on a fence and being unable to take any decisive step, positive or negative, seems to me to be becoming almost a habit. It will be unfortunate for hon. Members opposite if they let that habit become permanent. Broadly speaking, they simply say that they dislike nationalisation of the banking system. They dislike the idea that the nation should own and control the whole of it, even the part that it does not yet own, or is not going to own, rather to my regret. Of course, they dislike that, and, of course, we like it, because it is the system for which we stand. The existing system concentrates the whole economic resources and power of the country in the hands of a small minority which in no way represents the broad mass of citizens of this country, and, naturally enough, they use that power largely for their own benefit, and, in any case, such a system definitely involves a state of artificial security. Therefore, we are out to supplant that system with an entirely different one.
My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury mentioned the mandate which we have received on this subject, and I would like to comment on that, because I represent one of the most rural of constituencies, and it might be thought that perhaps there a subject of this kind attracted no interest. Some of us remember the very entertaining speech made by, I think, the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert) who drew a picture of yokels shouting from hedge to hedge the glad news of the nationalisation of the Bank of England. For my part I found that the question of nationalising the banking system was one of the best weapons in my armoury when I was talking to farm workers—the farm workers who put me in. I do not mean that I tried to explain all the detailed workings of our financial system but it was easy to explain the broad principles, the fact that money is actually created by the banking system, that the banking system directs the channel along which money is made to flow, and that very naturally, whoever owns the banking system, will direct it into channels and will create money to the same degree that is likely to make the best possible profits for himself.

Mr. Brendan Bracken: Did the hon. Member tell his constituents who actually owned the Bank?

Lieut.-Colonel Hamilton: At the present moment the Bank of England, until this Bill is nally passed, is owned by its shareholders, and it is the same with the joint stock banks. Am I not right?

Mr. Bracken: There are over 200,000 shareholders in the four joint stock banks. Do they today control the banking system of the country?

Lieut.-Colonel Hamilton: Yes, I quite follow that, and I think that the population of this United Kingdom of ours is in the region of 40,000,000, so that I think I was correct in saying that a small minority own the national resources.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I was under the impression that this was a maiden speech and I therefore allowed the hon. and gallant Member a good deal of latitude. I now suggest that he should try to keep to the subject.

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May I ask you whether you have forgotten the calendar? Is not the right hon. Gentleman speaking in the same season of the year as the hon. and gallant Member?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Only a certain degree of latitude is desirable.

Lieut.-Colonel Hamilton: I offer my apologies, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if I transgressed in any way. I have not a great deal more to say but I wanted to make the point that this mandate is a very general one from the whole nation. The people who gave it to us know exactly why they gave it to us, and, for my part, I am grateful to the Opposition for having the opportunity to emphasise the fact that they badly want to continue the bad old system, which has brought this artificial scarcity and concentrated power in an entirely undemocratic way into the hands of private individuals.

5.30 p.m.

Sir William Darling: I had not intended to speak on this subject but the hon. and gallant Member for Sudbury (Lieut.-Colonel Hamilton) has given me the cue which enables me to introduce the remarks I have to make. The hon. and gallant Member says that this matter of the nationalisation of the


Bank of England was of the weightiest importance to the electorate, and he tells us that, in the rural solitude of Sudbury, he found it a very important subject to discuss with the voters. I found that also. I found that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, during the recent election campaign, when they won a mandate from the nation, preferred to talk to the electors about the nationalisation of the Bank of England rather than the realities of the situation. I am not surprised that constituents in an agricultural community were regaled with the somewhat dull logic and questionable economics of the hon. Member opposite.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is not the Bank of England a reality?

Sir W. Darling: The subject was not understood by the electorate, and, with all respect, it is not understood by the Government. I think it is deplorable that, after the first six months of this Parliament, this piece of legislation should be practically our sole Christmas gift. The subject of this Bill is a great institution which has passed into proverbial language, and has been referred to throughout the world in the phrase, "As safe as the Bank of England." I think we are saying "Goodbye" today to that piece of English speech. I am not at all sure that that safety, which it characterised in the days when it was proverbial, will remain with it under the plans set forth in this Bill. This Bank, which was the subject of intimate discussion between the hon. and gallant Member for Sudbury and his constituents—may I tell him, and, perhaps, he will then tell his constituents? —is an intricate, delicate and wonderful piece of commercial and financial mechanism. [Interruption.] It was built up, let me remind the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) by a great Scotsman, and, in its long record of successful management, it has often been associated with his country. This institution, which, I believe, will be finished tonight by the votes of hon. Members opposite, has grown up in the greatest period of British history. In its standard of credit and in the expansion of Britain's greatness this banking institution has done much for British commerce, and, if hon. Members opposite, when the day comes for their achievements to be written on the

pages of history, can say that they put on the Statute Book something as valuable as the Bank of England, they can, indeed, count it no small triumph.
I feel that this is an historic occasion. Some of the observations we have heard from the other side of the House make me feel that hon. Members do not appreciate what they are doing and on what they intend to cast their votes. Very few members of the public and, indeed, a small number of Members of Parliament, know very much about financial operations. It is the great boast of the Socialist Party that they know nothing about finance. It is their proud boast and the basis of their case that they know nothing about this subject.

Captain George Jeger: On a point of Order. Is it in Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for an hon. Member to ascribe ignorance to us?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have been giving the hon. Member a good deal of latitude. I suggest that these constant interruptions will only encourage the hon. Member to carry on.

Sir W. Darling: I accept your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I shall endeavour to resist following these disorderly interruptions. I ask whether even from the point of view of the Government, with their deep convictions, its policy, to which this Bill seeks to give effect, is the wisest policy? Is it desirable that the State should be the sole authority, and the sole scapegoat for anything that goes amiss in this new type of organisation which they are building up—and, believe me, if it is in the interests of the country, I hope they will be successful in building it up—and should it be the final court of appeal? Is there not a better organisation in which the State, while directing and controlling, should not necessarily own and manage? Would the Government not be better off with the Bank of England outside their control? Is it desirable to eliminate all independent critical opinion on matters of public finance? Is it desirable that the Treasury should have another office in the City of London made up of "yes men," who have learned its language and speak its thoughts? Is that the kind of Government we want in a great, free, democratic community? Do we want bankers all of whom think absolutely alike? Is there to be only one


theory of public finance and public banking in the days to come? If that is so, I think this will be an unhappy community.
We have today a great Chancellor of the Exchequer, but what guarantee have we that we shall have a succession of great Chancellors? So far as I know, angels do not have any progeny. The Chancellor has been spoken of as the guardian angel of the Treasury, but he cannot have any legitimate successor—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I fail to see where angels come into the Bill.

Sir W. Darling: In this discussion, the Chancellor was referred to as a guardian angel, and I was following up that permitted observation by suggesting that, while he may be so described, not even the present Government can guarantee a succession of persons of angelic origin. This Bill deals with the price to be paid for this institution. There are a number of agricultural proverbs which remind me of the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Sudbury. There is one about not killing the goose which lays the golden eggs, which is a suitable subject for agricultural workers to discuss in Sudbury. But that is not the principle followed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has indicated that he is fully intent on buying a pig in a poke. As I said on Second Reading, I am disappointed not to know what we are getting for our £58,000,000. The Chancellor could not tell us. Is it too much or too little? I do not know, but has the Chancellor the right to say that we should tell our constituents that he has bought the Bank for £58,000,000, and if they ask whether it was worth it, we are to say, "Of course it was worth it; otherwise the Chancellor would not have bought it? "He has not condescended to give the details. What is the value of the assets of the Bank of England? I do not know. Here, beside me, is the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman) who is a director of the Bank of England, and he does not know. This House has a right to know. We are taking on a big banking industry. What are we getting for our money? Is this a false prospectus, because, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, there have been many in the past. I want to know, but I suppose I shall never know.

Lieut.-Colonel Hamilton: I suggest that we are getting financial control of our own finances.

Sir W. Darling: I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Member. If he proceeds with his little country chats, he may be able to instruct other hon. Members as well as myself. If the Government will not tell me what they are getting for their £58,000,000, I would suggest an alternative proposal. They are taking over the Bank of England. It is not a very daring or gallant or adventurous thing to take over a long established, well-managed capitalist institution. Let me direct the attention of the House to another country in which they have made Socialistic experiments. The Commonwealth of Australia did not take over an existing bank. They set up an independent bank.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member should not be led astray so easily. Will he please get back to the Bill?

Sir W. Darling: The roads back to the Bill are so many, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the hon. Member keeps to the strait and narrow path, he will not get into trouble.

Sir W. Darling: I shall endeavour to do so. The Commonwealth of Australia, I say, did not take over an existing bank, but courageously, and with initiative and character, set up a bank of their own, the Commonwealth Bank. That has not been done here. English Socialism travels rather slowly behind the Socialist experiments of the great Dominion, and I regret it, because there would have been some advantage in leaving the Bank of England as it was and setting up a State bank of their own creation and coming into being under this Bill.
Then there is the matter of directors. Like the hon. Member for Bath, I am dissatisfied with what I understand is the intention of the Government, to appoint 18 directors. Is this the fulfilment of the policy or jobs for all, because it indicates that 18 very good jobs will certainly be going? I hope hon. Members will not be discouraged by the fact that they are not available to Members of Parliament though they could easily resign their membership if they had the promise of a glittering directorship of the Bank of England as compensation, and I hope that


will not discourage anybody. I feel that these undefined directors, who are to control the banking policy of the country in future, will have a great reaction upon the existing banking system. We have had a very fine banking system in this country—so good, so strong, and so stable that people in this country did not know that we had a banking system. That banking system is known to Continental people and to the United States. That banking system has never caused a moment's anxiety within the lifetime of anybody in this House. That cannot be said of the banking system of any other country In the world.
This new Bank of England will have intimate relations with the joint stock banking system of this country. What will those relations be? Will they strengthen the confidence of the depositors in the joint stock banks or will they weaken that confidence? Will they strengthen the confidence of the management of the joint stock banks and their sense of public responsibility, or weaken it? I am inclined to think that unless these directors are chosen with very great care and from conventional banking circles, it is extremely unlikely. I am gravely concerned as to the future of the joint stock banks in this country. Hon. Members opposite will have their answer, of course; they will say, "We have nationalised the Bank of England, we will nationalise the joint stock banks too." There is no limit to the rake's progress; the rake does not stop progressing until he lies flat on his face, drunk.

Mr. Gallacher: A sad Hogmanay.

Sir W. Darling: As the hon. Member says, it will indeed be a sad Hogmanay. This is not a very happy gift to take home to Scotland, or, indeed, to any constituency. When I remember that this Measure is being associated in this very week with a loan of a most unfortunate character to this country—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is fully aware that he cannot discuss that subject.

Sir W. Darling: I am reminded, Sir, that you have ruled it out of Order already, and consequently I will not pursue it. I will conclude by reading a very interesting little pamphlet which seems fairly to sum up the policy of His

Majesty's Government. This pamphlet speaks of their plans in finance and in industry:
 It shall bring science and modern technique to rebuild our broken economic system. It shall bring also new values and a new morality to rebuild that broken faith of a nation. Public service and private liberty shall be its twin pillars. All shall serve the interests of the nation in their public life. All shall receive from the nation in return a real liberty in private life.
These are sentiments which hon. Members opposite will agree. [An Hon. Member: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to hear at least one honest cheer. I do not blame the rest of the hon. Members opposite for being slightly doubtful, for these are sentiments of Fascism in Britain contained in a pamphlet written by a late member of the Socialist Party, Sir Oswald Mosley. I am against this Bill because it is part of that totalitarian build-up which I believe— I see much of it in this House—will go far to destroy the ancient liberties of our people.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. Dalton: As the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) has said, in his most agreeable, though not always strictly relevant observations, we must all face the future— that was one of his wisecracks. Therefore the Government are asking this House to pass this Bill. The hon. and gallant Member for Sudbury (Lieut.-Colonel Hamilton) was one of the sensations of the last Election. He was what Oliver Cromwell would have called "one of our crowning mercies," because not even the gloomiest Tory thought before the election that they could lose Sudbury. It is indeed remarkable that my hon. and gallant Friend has emphasised to the House this afternoon that one of the great factors which turned the Tory stronghold of Sudbury into a Labour seat was my hon. and gallant Friend's clear exposition of the policy lying behind this Bill. It is evident that this Bill has behind it a great mass of informed public opinion throughout the country. It was in the forefront of our programme in the election; it is in the forefront of our legislative proposals in this first great Session of this new Parliament, and I compliment the Opposition on having been able for so long to continue the Debate, in view of the evident, overwhelming weight both of public opinion outside this House and


of logical argument within it, in favour of the Bill.
I have been pressed by many hon. Members to announce what it is we are getting in exchange for £58,000,000, which has been placed as the value to be paid in compensation to the present stockholders of the Bank. Hitherto I have resisted the temptation to answer the question but I feel, in view of the many requests that have been made to me from the other side of the House, that the time has come when it is due to the Opposition to tell them. The answer is, for £58,000,000 we are getting much more than £58,000,000 of value.

Mr. Brendan Bracken: How much?

Mr. Dalton: My right hon. Friend must not press me too far. I have gone a considerable distance in meeting the very reasonable demand of the Opposition, but he must not turn reasonable demands into unreasonable ones.

Mr. Bracken: What possible reason can there be for not giving us this figure? I can well understand that, when the Bank was a private institution, it was probably undesirable to disclose its hidden reserves, but now that the State has control of the Bank of England—or will shortly get control—the credit of the State is at least as good as the Bank's, and there can be no question but that the Chancellor should tell the House what we have got for the £58,000,000. After all, the Socialist Party have always talked about publicity and finance. They have gone all over the country talking about it.

Mr. Dalton: We have not yet passed the Bill into law. Who knows but that in another place there may be a great challenge to the will of the people, and I will reserve the right, in relation to the circumstances of the time that may be involved, to answer, perhaps at a later date, with slightly more precision. For the moment, however, I go far beyond anything that has hitherto been revealed to the Opposition when I say that we are getting in return for £58,000,000 substantially more than £58,000,000 worth of public assets, and that ought to satisfy the Opposition.
Passing away from this reasonable matter of compensation, and since the

hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman) is a great graph addict, he will, I am sure, have been the first to observe the great significance of the graphs published in the Report of the Select Committee—

Earl Winterton: What is a graph addict?

Mr. Dalton: A graph addict is a person who is addicted to the use of graphs, in the same way as a drug addict is a person addicted to the use of drugs. The graphs which are displayed in the Report of the Select Committee very greatly shook my confidence in some of the advice that I received earlier on as to what was fair compensation. It really seemed that we had, as I said the other day, been a shade too generous, but His Majesty's Government is by nature generous and we do not wish to drive too hard or unconscionable a bargain with our fellow citizens who happen to own this particular stock. Therefore, in spite of the very interesting results shown in this graph, I have not thought it right to make any Amendments in the compensation terms. We stand by our bargain even if that bargain was perhaps a little more favourable to the stockholders than we had supposed.
I will speak briefly on Clause 4 which has been much debated. I am quite confident that the working of this Clause will be satisfactory to the public interest. I am quite confident that, on the one hand the Governor of the Bank and those associated with him and, on the other hand, the clearing banks, will be prepared to co-operate one with another and with the Treasury in enabling this Bill to be a real instrument for coherent financial planning of the resources of the country. That is what the Bill is for. At the present time we have a Bank of England institutionally most eccentric. We have a. Bank of England owned by a number of private stockholders and organically detached from the Government machine and from the control of this House. It is impossible now to get past the table, as the phrase goes, any question relating to anything done by, or on behalf of, the Bank of England. We think that that is wrong from the democratic point of view —and references have been made to democratic control in this Debate. We think it should be possible for hon. Members of this House to put questions and


to raise debates regarding the central monetary and banking policy of the country. As the result of this Bill, for the first time that will become possible. We give the House of Commons new opportunities for the discussion of these free and fundamental matters, new opportunities hitherto denied them by reason of the constitution of the Bank and the past Rulings of the Chair which have, of course, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, been perfectly proper in the light of the existing legal situation. All that is changed for the better and in a democratic direction.
Furthermore, so far as the joint stock banks arc concerned, we are asking them to come into a partnership with the Bank of England, with the Treasury, with the Government, and with the House of Commons in working out to the best advantage according to a continuing plan, extending over years, developed and elaborated as we go on, for fixing priorities, for guiding the credit of the country into directions most conducive to the public interest. We arc asking them to enter into this partnership and they, at any rate, have taken no part in any raging, tearing propaganda against the Bill. They are by no means committed to agreement with it or to controversy on it, but they have played a very proper and patriotic part in so far as they, too, have recognised the mandate given by the country to us, not only to transfer the Bank of England into public ownership, but also to take the necessary steps to harmonise the operations of the other banks with national needs and with industrial requirements. I pay my tribute to the chairmen of the joint stock banks, with whom I have been in friendly conversation over a cup of tea—because they came at tea time; at another hour of the day it might have been something else.
I hope this close relationship will continue. I see no reason whatever why it should not, and I regret very much any attempt by any hon. Member opposite to stir up ill-feeling and bad blood between His Majesty's Government, the Governor of the Bank of England, and the chairmen of the clearing banks. It is very wrong to raise such thoughts or to seek to sow such suspicions between those who, till now at any rate, have co-operated most harmoniously. This Bill, in Clause 4, provides a framework within which such co-operation can continue. I agreed in the discussions in Committee to insert

Amendments in the Clause to make abundantly clear that there will be consultation with those concerned before directions—if ever they should be needed —are actually issued.
Such consultations there shall certainly be, and it maybe that those directions will be so rare, so unusual, as to be practically a dead letter in the strictly legal sense. If, however, need should be, it must be clear who is master, and it must be clear on the face of the Statute, without ambiguity or shuffling, that in the last resort this Government, supported by a majority in this House—themselves sent here by a majority in this country—are to be masters of the great decision in its favour. It is on that democratic principle that we stand, reinforced by the judgment of the country, and therefore I ask that this Bill shall now be read a Third time.

6.16 p.m.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Mr. W. J. Brown(Rugby)  rose—

Hon. Members: Divide.

Mr. Brown: I will not detain the House long, but I think I ought to say with some bluntness at the outset that if there was anything calculated to make me do so, it is opposition from the other side of the House, more especially in view of the fact that I am about to support the Government. In this House every Member has his own rights, and so far as I am concerned I shall exercise those rights. I spoke on the Second Reading of this Bill, and I gave it very strong support. I want now to support the Third Reading, and, in doing so, to dispose of two or three of the arguments advanced from above the Gangway, and to state what I conceive to be conclusive reasons why this Bill should go forward. It is obvious from the Debate today that there are Members on this side of the House suffering from schizophrenia or split personalities. They cannot make up their minds whether to regard this Bill as an item in a large-scale plan of nationalisation, of which every item has got to be resisted—because if they do not resist the parts they cannot resist the whole—or whether this Bill is to be considered on its own merits and to be judged on its advantages or disadvantages. That is the fundamental division in the minds of the Opposition today.

Mr. Boothby: I want to know whether I am included in the category of split personalities.

Mr. Brown: It will be within the experience of the House that a solitary star shines brightest in the darkest sky.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: The hon. Member was addressing the House and referring to one solitary star, but there arc two stars—one is behind me.

Mr. Brown: The trouble about the second star is that its brilliance is being overshadowed by passing clouds. First, we are said, in the language of the hon. Gentleman who spoke from the back bench, to be dealing with the Bank of England when we ought to be dealing with the "realities of the situation." Now let me make it plain that I am not an advocate of unrestrained nationalisation. I think that it would be a misfortune if we ever reached a stage where the majority of the people of this country were employed by the State. I think that there must always be sufficient industry and enterprise outside the range of the State to prevent the State becoming the sole regulator of the life of the people, from the cradle to the grave. But whether it is a Socialist Government or whether it is a Conservative Government, which is in question, I cannot conceive how a Government can govern without the powers contained in this Bill. That is a matter which ought to interest the entrepreneurs of industry and the captains of industry, just as much as it does the workmen of industry, because the former have been the victims of our old banking system, as much as the latter. A little later on I will quote my own experience, as a capitalist, of the banking system.
I hold that we are dealing with realities here and fundamental realities at that. I will quote two of them. One is the effect that the releasing or restriction of credit can have on putting millions of men into work, or millions of men out of work, within a matter of a very few weeks. That may not be a fundamental reality to my hon. Friends on the Back Bench, but it is to millions of people in this country. The power of so regulating credit, by a private-owned institution, that can put millions of men in work or out of work according to the way it expands credit or restricts it, is not a power which we ought to allow to remain in the hands of any private group of individuals whatever. We know that this has happened in our lifetime.
We know that another great reality happened too. There was a fundamental distortion, with tremendous social consequences, in the direction of investments in this country by the banks because for them the test was not social good, but profit. In the interwar years you would have found it very difficult to raise money for shipbuilding in Britain, difficult to get money for producing coal or for agriculture. But you could get all the money in the world for cinemas, pubs, and dog race tracks. We have paid dearly for this distortion during the war. I remember once conceiving the idea of starting a holiday camp and this brought me into contact with the banks. I conceived the holiday camp idea, and I built the first modern holiday camp in Britain. I went to the bank to borrow money. Now that idea of mine was socially a very good idea. But it had not been tried out, and there was no assurance that it would succeed or make a profit, and so I could raise no money from the banking system of Britain except on the basis of "collateral security." Those words are written on my heart. What they meant, in my vocabulary, was that if you had not got any money you could not have any; but if you had some you could have some more. Not having any money, and not being able to get any from the bank, I borrowed right, left and centre from my friends.
I raised enough money to get this interesting experiment going. It was an immediate success. It was imitated all over the country. And now it is a substantial industry in Britain. What happened when war came? When war came my company had an overdraft—not because we had spent money injudiciously, but because we had spent it in expanding the business. The Government took over our companies. We had a protracted, emphatic and somewhat vehement discussion as to the amount of compensation the Government were to pay. They took a long time to come to a conclusion. In the meantime I got letters from my bank talking about our overdraft, and referring to the necessity of "reducing "—another word written on my heart! Ultimately I was compelled to be stern with the bank.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I must be stern with the hon. Member. Will he please keep to the Bill?

Mr. Brown: I submit that it will be found that this story has very great relevance.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Will the hon. Member make it applicable at once then?

Mr. Brown: At this festive season, Sir, you would not have the heart—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There are limits to my endurance.

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Surely the hon. Member is entitled to give illustrations about how credit is controlled. That is what he was doing. That Bill proposes in Clause 4 to direct the Bank in circumstances of this kind.

Mr. Brown: I want to bring the story to a conclusion. I had to be very stern with these fellows. I said that if I had any more trouble with them they should not continue to look after my overdraft for a day longer. I have had no trouble since.
Now all this does illustrate that the principles which guided the banking system of Britain were not what were socially desirable or necessary. It was not—Will, this redound to public good? None of the tests of social desirability were applied. What was applied was this: Can you pay so much per cent. interest and pay back the principle within a given number of years, and give us security in the meantime by means of "collateral security." The result was that there was an immense disbalance in our internal economy in Britain. The How of money went in a socially undesirable direction, away from the industries most necessary to our survival, especially in time of war. We paid in this country in agricultural shortage, shortage of food; in coal, shortage of fuel; and in shipping for the errors that permeated the whole of the banking morality of this country in the inter war period. I say that there are two great realities. They are the control of credit, with its effects on employment and unemployment, and the control of the flow of money affecting the balance or disbalance of the whole social economy. From these two realities it is apparent that the Government cannot govern in Britain unless it has the powers that this Bill gives it.
Next, it is disgraceful, in my view, that operations of that magnitude should be out with the control of this House of Commons. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is perfectly right on this. In the 1929–31 Parliament I tried to table three questions. I wanted to know who were the directors of the Bank of England. I wanted to know what was the amount of their holdings in the Bank of England. And I wanted to know what was the amount of their holdings in foreign financial houses—three questions to which, I think, every Member in this House is entitled to know the answer. I was told that the Bank of England was a "private institution." I said that I thought that it was a "public nuisance." I submit that is intolerable. This is a matter which does not only affect the workmen. I marvel that long ago there has not been combination between the captains of industry and the workmen against the parasitical, financial institutions of this country, which thrive on capitalist enterprise and labour alike.
It is said that the Bank of England has been "wonderful." I would have said "fearful and wonderful." And as for being as "safe as the Bank of England," the blessed thing was founded on the bankruptcy of a Monarch and it has gone "bust" six times. Safe? It is unsafe that these powers should rest in hands other than those of responsible Government, answerable to Members of this House. I cannot see how the Government can plan any kind of ordered community in Britain if this power is not in their hands. There are other items which I will not support in the proposals for nationalisation. There are others I will support. I think that these things have to be considered on their merits. The answer to some will be "aye" and the answers to others will be "nay." But I am clear that Government must have the powers asked for in this Bill. For these reasons I shall vote for the Third Reading, as I voted for the Second Reading, with the firm conviction that I am doing good not only for the workmen of this country, and for enterprise in this country, but doing good for the idea of a balanced community, in making the money power answerable to the great democracy of this country.

6.30 p.m.

Captain Blackburn: I desire to make a few


comments and I have decided to make them only because of the speech which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) has just made. I may be unpopular as the result of making them, but I still propose to make them. I welcome this Act of Parliament, and I welcome the general principle which everybody has approved, but I am convinced the only real criticism of this Measure should have come from the Left in this House and not from the Right. There is no power, whatever, under this Bill for the Chancellor of the Exchequer or this House to deal with the granting or withholding of credits in relation to big business such as Austin's and Cadbury's in my part of the country, or Imperial Chemical Industries, or Lever Brothers.

Mr. W. J. Brown: There is another Bill which the Government is bringing forward which does deal with investments in this way, and this present Bill is essential to the functioning of that.

Captain Blackburn: There are two perfectly separate questions and issues here. One, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is that of bank credits and the other con-

cerns the flow of investments. They are perfectly separate subjects, and as far as the meaning of credits is concerned there is no power under this Bill whatsoever to inquire into the affairs of Imperial Chemical Industries or Lever Brothers. I am not making an attack on the Front Bench; I am simply trying to say that in future, when Measures come forward, I would like hon. Members to know that, in my opinion, the people of this country are not being fully represented on the Floor of the House of Commons, or even on the benches from which I am speaking. The mass of the people of this country would be prepared for further action even in relation to the granting of credits. I look forward to the further matters to which the hon. Gentleman has referred with the greatest interest. I hope my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench will believe that I have made these unpopular observations only because I desire, so far as I can, to fulfil the spirit of the Blackpool Conference.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

The House divided: Ayes, 306; Noes, 126.

Division No. 59.]
AYES.
[6.35 p.m.


Adams, Capt. Richard (Balham)
Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Driberg, T. E. N.


Adamson, Mrs. J. L.
Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Dumpleton, C. W.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Buchanan, G.
Durbin, E. F. M.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Burden, T. W.
Dye, S.


Allighan, Garry
Burke, W A.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Alpass, J. H.
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Edelman, M.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Byers, Lt.-Col. F.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Callaghan, James
Edwards, John (Blackburn)


Attewell, H. C.
Champion, A. J.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)


Austin, H. L.
Chater, D.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)


Ayles, W. H.
Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Clitherow, R.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)


Bacon, Miss A.
Cluse, W. S.
Fairhurst, F.


Baird, Capt. J.
Cobb, F. A.
Farthing, W. J.


Balfour, A.
Cocks, F. S.
Foot, M. M.


Barstow, P. G.
Collick, P.
Forman, J. C.


Barton, C.
Collins, V. J.
Foster, W. (Wigan)


Battley, J. R.
Colman, Miss G. M.
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Comyns, Dr. L.
Gaitskell, H. T. N.


Belcher, J. W.
Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Gallacher, W.


Bellenger, F. J.
Corlett, Dr. J.
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)


Berry, H.
Corvedale, Viscount
Gibbins, J.


Beswick, Flt.-Lieut. F.
Cove, W. G.
Gibson, C. W.


Bing, Capt. G. H. C.
Crawley, Flt.-Lieut. A.
Gilzean, A.


Binns, J.
Daggar, G.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)


Blackburn, Capt. A. R.
Daines, P.
Gooch, E. G.


Blenkinsop, Capt. A.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.


Blyton, W. R.
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Granville, E. (Eye)


Boothby, R.
Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Grenfell, D. R.


Bottomley, A. G.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Grey, C. F.


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Grierson, E.


Bowen, R.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Deer, G.
Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Guest, Dr. L. Haden


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Delargy, Captain H. J.
Gunter, Capt. R J.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Diamond, J.
Guy, W. H.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Dodds, N. N.
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)


Brown, George (Belper)
Douglas, F. C. R.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.




Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Montague, F.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Hardman, D. R.
Moody, A. S.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Haworth, J.
Morley, R.
Snow, Capt. J. W.


Herbison, Miss M.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Sorensen, R. W.


Hobson, C. R.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.


Holman, P.
Moyle, A.
Sparks, J. A.


Horabin, T. L.
Murray, J. D.
Steele, T.


House, G.
Nally, W.
Stephen, C.


Hoy, J.
Naylor, T. E.
Stokes, R. R.


Hubbard, T.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Strachay, J.


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Stubbs, A. E.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Swingler, Capt. S.


Hughes, Lt. H. D, (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
O'Brien, T.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Oldfield, W. H.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Oliver, G. H.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Irving, W. J.
Orbach, M.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Jeger, Capt. G. (Winchester)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Thorneycroft, H. (Manchester, C.)


Jones, P. Asterley
Pargiter, G. A.
Thurtle, E.


Keenan, W.
Parker, J.
Tiffany, S.


Kenyon, C.
Parkin, Fit-Lieut. B. T.
Timmins, J.


Key, C. W.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Tolley, L.


King, E. M.
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Pearson, A.
Usborne, Henry


Kinley,J
Peart, Capt. T. F.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Kirkwood, D.
Perrins, W.
Viant, S. P.


Lavers, S.
Piratin, P.
Walkden, E.


Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.
Walker, G. H.


Lee, F. (Hulme)
Porter, E. (Warrington).
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Leonard, W.
Pritt, D. N.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Leslie, J. R.
Proctor, W. T.
Warbey, W. N.


Levy, B. W.
Pryde, D. J.
Watkins, T. E.


Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Watson, W. M.


Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Randall, H. E.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Lipson, D. L.
Ranger, J.
Weitzman, D.


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Rankin, J.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Logan, D. G.
Rees-Williams, Lt.-Col. D. R.
Wells, Maj. W. T. (Walsall)


Longden, F.
Reeves, J.,
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


McAdam, W.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Wigg, Col. G. E. C.


McAllister, G.
Rhodes, H.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


McEntee, V. La T.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Wilkes, Maj. L.


McGhee, H. G.
Roberts, Sq.Ldr. Emrys O. (M'rion'th)
Wilkins, W. A.


McGovern, J.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Wilkinson, Rt. Hon. Ellen


Mack, J. D.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


McKay, J. (wallsend)
Rogers, G. H. R.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


McKinlay, A. S.
Royle, C.
Williams, Rt. Hon. E. J. (Ogmore)


Maclean, N. (Govan)
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


McLeavy, F.
Sargood, R.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Macpherson, T. (Romford).
Segal Sq.-Ldr. S.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Mainwaring. W. H.
Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.
Williamson, T


Mann, Mrs. J.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Willis, E.


Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping).
Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Heiens)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Marshall, F. (Brightside).
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Wilson, J. H.


Mathers, G.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Woods, G. S.


Maxton, J.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Wyatt, Maj. W.


Mayhew, C. P.
Simmons, C. J.
Yates, V. F


Medland, H. M.
Skeffington A. M.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Messer, 
Skeffington-Lodge, Lt. T. C.
Zilliacus, K.


Middleton, Mrs. L.
Skinnard, F. W.



Mitchison, Maj. G. R.
Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Monslow, W.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Capt. Michael Stewart and Mr. J. Henderson





NOES.



Aitken, Hon. M.
Clarke, Col. R. S.
Erroll, Col. F. J.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Fletcher, W. (Bury)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Fraser, Lt.-Col. Sir I. (Lonsdale)


Baldwin, A. E.
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.


Barlow, Sir J.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Gammans, L. D.


Baxter, A. B.
Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.
Gates, Maj. E. E.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Cuthbert, W. N.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.


Bennett, Sir P.
Darling, Sir W. Y.
Gridley, Sir A.


Bireh, Lt.-Col. Nigel
Davidson, Viscountess
Grimston, R. V.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
De la Bère, R.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)


Bower, N.
Dodds-Parker, Col. A. D.
Hare, Lt.-Col. Hon. J. H. (W'dbridge)


Boyd-Carpenter, Maj. J. A.
Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Haughton, S. G.


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Drayson, Capt. G. B.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Drewe, C
Hogg, Hon. Q.


Butcher, H. W.
Duthie, W. S.
Hope, Lord J,


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Eccles, D. M.
Howard, Hon. A.


Carson,E.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)







Hulbert, N. J.
Maude, J. C.
Sutcliffe, H.


Hurd, A.
Mellor, Sir J.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr. Clark (Edin'gh, W.)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Teeling, Fit.-Lieut. W.


Hutchison, Lt.-Col. J. R. (G'gow, C.)
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Neven-Spence, Major Sir B.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr. Hon. L. W.
Nicholson, G.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Nutting, Anthony
Touche, G. C.


Lindsay, Lt.-Col. M. (Solihull)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Vane, W. M. T.


Linstead, H. N.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Wakefield, Sir W W.


Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Pitman, I. J.
Walker-Smith, Lt.-Col. D.


Low, Brig. A. R. W.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Lucas, Major Sir J.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry).
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Raikes, H. V.
Wheatley, Col. M. J.


Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury) 
White, D. (Fareham)


McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Renton, D.
White, Maj. J. B. (Canterbury)


MacLeod, Capt. J.
Sanderson, Sir F
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold
Savory, Prof. D. L.
Williams, Lt.-Comdr. Gerald (T'nbr'ge)


Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)
Scott, Lord W.
Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U.


Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Shepherd, Lieut. W. S. (Bucklow)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)
York, C.


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Spearman, A. C. M.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Marples, Capt. A. E.
Spence, Maj. H. R.



Marsden, Capt. A.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Marshall, Comdr. D. (Bodmin).
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Commander Agnew and Mr. Studholme


Marshall, S. H. (Sutton).
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J.



Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

SECRET SESSION PROCEEDINGS

6.45 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I beg to move,
 That no proceeding in this House during the last Parliament held in Secret Session be any longer secret.
The issue before the House is, I think, a fairly simple one. Briefly it is whether the secrecy which was imposed in the interests of national security on certain of the proceedings of the House during the war should be maintained and continued in present circumstances. When I told the House last Thursday of our intentions in this respect, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington(Mr. Eden) asked whether we would give our reasons for our proposal at what might seem to be an early stage. I said that we would do so. In short, the Government's reasons for asking the House to lift this ban now are that they are satisfied that it is nolonger necessary and, as I have told the House before — without always, I am afraid, convincing hon. Members opposite, which is a pity because I meant what I said — the Government are anxious to lift all wartime restrictions as soon as they cease to be necessary. They are firmly opposed to restrictions for their own sake, and they are also firmly opposed to secrecy unless there are good grounds of public interest for it. In pursuance of this policy of doing away with all unnecessary restrictions and secrecy, we ask the House to approve this Motion.
The House met in Secret Session during the war for one reason and one reason only — to keep from the enemy information which might help him in the prosecution of the war. Many of the Secret Sittings — 28 in number — dealt with the days and hours of meeting of the House — an elementary air raid precaution — and secrecy in this respect has already been removed by the Resolution passed by the House on 26th September, 1944. As for the other Secret Sittings — 37 in number, including three which also dealt with hours — I must confine myself to the official reports of the proceedings which were issued by Mr. Speaker, but I can say that as regards most of them there can be no conceivable objection to disclosure now, and doubt can only exist about what I may call the major occasions when important statements were made or discussions took place connected with the conduct of the war in one phase or another.
The secrecy which was imposed during the war was enforced by two methods.

Earl Winterton: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain one thing, which is really a question of Procedure? He said he must confine himself to official reports of the proceedings. Does that mean that he considers that he is stopped, by the Rules of the House, from referring to what was the nature of these Secret Sessions?

Mr. Morrison: Except in so far as there was publication by an authorised announcement by Mr. Speaker at the time,


I think I am estopped, unless and until this Motion is carried.
Publication of anything which happened in Secret Sessions which went further than the Speaker's official report was, and of course remains, a breach of Privilege. Secondly, under Defence Regulation 3(2), which was revoked on 28th September, shortly after the Press censorship came to an end, it was an offence to publish any report of, or to purport to describe the proceedings at, any Secret Session, except such report or description thereof as was officially communicated through the Press and Censorship Bureau. That revocation took place by Order in Council. No objection was raised, and there was no Prayer against the revocation of that Defence Regulation. Thus the question of an offence under Defence Regulation has gone.
What remains and what we have to decide tonight is whether references to proceedings in Secret Session shall continue to be a breach of Privilege. We as a Government are satisfied that this is no longer necessary on security grounds. If this is so, the maintenance of the ban could only, in our view, be justified if there were other and weighty reasons for maintaining it in the public interest. I can conceive that there might be circumstances in which notwithstanding that there was no longer any danger to national security it would be right to keep the Privilege protection on, but in the present case neither I nor those of my colleagues in the Government who were members of the last House of Commons and attended the Secret Sessions know of any substantial reason for doing so. I was present, I think, at all the more important Secret Sessions—I was not present all the time at every one—and as far as my own recollection of the proceedings goes, it is certainly my firm opinion that there would be no danger to public security if the ban were now lifted. On the other hand, it is, as I have said, right in principle to lift the security ban as soon as it can safely be done, and there are also solid practical reasons for this course.
The chief is that as recollections fade of what was said in secret and what in open Session there is a serious risk of the ban becoming a dead letter in effect. It is very easy, as I am sure hon. Members who were present on those occasions will will agree, to forget whether a particular

thing was mentioned at a Secret Session or at a public Session. It is the more difficult because the ban applies to everything which was said in secret and not only to matters which were in themselves and by themselves secret. Much was harmless even at the time, and much has become common knowledge since.
It is, therefore, in the interest of all who attended the Secret Sessions that they should be protected against the predicament in which it would be so easy to find oneself of inadvertently referring to secret proceedings without realising that one was doing so. And what is worse, as time goes on the ban will become increasingly difficult to enforce, and the moral authority of the House and the respect for its orders will be weakened. It is also desirable from the point of view of history that the restrictions should be removed as early as possible.

Mr. Stokes: Hear, hear.

Mr. Morrison: I was nearly tempted then, but it would involve a breach of Privilege, and I beg my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich not to tempt me any more. The proceedings were not reported at the time, nor have they been reported since in the Hansard sense of the term, nor in any other sense, as far as I know.
If the removal of the restrictions is delayed until memories become still dimmer and maybe some of the principal actors have died it will increase the risk that the impression which the public and posterity will obtain of the proceedings will be misleading and incomplete. It may be argued that one of the objections to acting now is the risk that currency will be given to garbled versions of what took place. In fact, I should have thought that the earlier the ban is lifted the less risk there was of garbled versions and the longer the ban was kept on the greater the risk, when it comes off, of the versions being garbled. The sanctions against the spread of inaccurate accounts of the secret proceedings will, as I have said, be easier to enforce now than later. Anybody outside the House who gives offence in this respect can be dealt with under the ordinary rules of Privilege. Inside the House the Chair can be relied on to provide an effective check.
The removal of the ban on the disclosure of proceedings in Secret Session is an essential preliminary to the publication


of the Journals of the wartime Sessions, which have been withheld from the public during the last six years. It is true that the Journals do not report speeches, but they record proceedings as well as decisions of the House. And although proceedings and decisions in some of the Secret Sessions were reported by Mr. Speaker, with regard to others no official information has hitherto been made public. The agreement of the House to the Motions which I am proposing will secure the immediate release for publication of the wartime Journals, which are already in print but have been available hitherto only to a few officers of the House.
The Motion before the House is solely the responsibility of the Government, but I should, I think, say again that, as I told the House last Thursday, we thought it right to inform Mr. Speaker on a matter which is so essentially one of Parliamentary procedure and he tells us that there is no objection as far as he is concerned.
I accordingly ask the House to agree that no proceeding in this House during the last Parliament held in Secret Session be any longer kept secret, and for the reasons I have submitted to the House I trust that this Motion will be agreeable to hon. Members.

6.57 p.m.

Mr. Eden: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving us this information. It was useful both for the House and for others who may not be very familiar with our Procedure. Let me reassure the right hon. Gentleman at once that the last thing I want to do is to discourage him in any way, if he is moved by the spirit to spare us some control. I only hope that that is not merely a Yuletide festival spirit but that he will continue in that mood when the House reassembles. We shall do our best to encourage him in that spirit. Nor by any means do I want to suggest that any avoidable secrecy should be maintained. I do not myself take that view.
When I first heard the proposal the point occurred to me that, as the right hon. Gentleman explained, and as is perhaps not universally known, there was no kind of record of any of these speeches. It therefore occurred to me that possibly the memories of those who made speeches at the time may not be entirely impecc-

able, and that when they are produced, as no doubt they will be produced, either in a small trickle or a flood, people might think that they represent something nearer authenticity than in fact they probably do. As far as I can remember I took part in one or two Secret Sessions myself. [Interruption.] I think I am all right in saying that; I shall be stopped if I am not. I was merely about to observe that I have no recollection of what I said, and I would find it quite impossible to reconstruct whatever I did say. I wish to say that so that the general public might be forewarned of that before we are told all the ex post facto wisdom of those who took part in those deliberations. That is the only warning I have to give on behalf of my hon. Friends. We have no desire to oppose the Motion.

6.59 p.m.

Mr. Stokes: I feel that this is a somewhat historic occasion, largely because I find myself, for once, having to recall that I found myself in the wrong. When the war started I can recollect urging that secret Debates should take place in order that private Members should have an opportunity, without doing any harm to the national cause, of telling the Government what they thought about them and defence matters. I found that I was wrong. As time went on—I am not going to speak about what we talked about in secret—it is within general knowledge that secret Debates on the whole were used for the purpose of covering up Governmental mistakes and preventing the public from knowing what the truth was. I pass from that. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) was in error about this matter of saying whether one spoke or did not. I always thought that one was not allowed to say whether one spoke in a secret Debate or not. I think you are not allowed to say you spoke in a secret Debate.

Mr. Eden: I could not remember whether I did or not.

Mr. Stokes: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he could not remember what he talked about. I remember your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and your Ruling was certainly this, that a Member might talk about what was discussed in secret Debate provided it was not secret, but you must not say you heard it in a secret Debate. As I never


heard anything which was secret in a secret Debate I always felt myself quite clear about what I could do, but I do get up against something extremely difficult when I come to the question of garbled versions, to which my right hon. Friend referred. Of many of the secret Debates I have no recollection of any kind whatsoever, but there were one or two in which I was intensely interested. I must not say I spoke in them, because that would be breaking the rule, but it might happen that I made in public statements which I should have made in the secret Debate had I had the opportunity of catching your eye, Mr. Speaker. Now I am in this difficulty if this Motion is passed. I not only have a good memory of things I understand and which I think I know about, but I also have records which, paying great regard to what you said in this House, I have been careful to keep under double lock and key. Am I then to be entitled, if some well-intentioned editor of a newspaper suggests to me that I should write up that particular Debate, to accept whatever enormous sum he offers me in order to make perfectly clear what was discussed and what the points were in the particular matter under discussion? I hope the Lord President of the Council, who knows to what I am referring, will tell me before this Debate finishes how I stand.
On the question of historical record, the Lord President of the Council impressed upon the House the importance of removing this embargo because certain things were decided which naturally were of historical consequence and people would find an ever-increasing difficulty in recollecting what they did or did not hear discussed in Secret Session. The right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, who at that time was speaking sometimes as Leader of the House and sometimes as Foreign Secretary, and sometimes as both, said all sorts of things. He said that he does not now remember what he talked about, and obviously he will be at a great disadvantage when he comes to write his memoirs, if he ever does so, if he is not free absolutely to say the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I want to ask my right hon. Friend another question. There was a subject in which, as the whole House knows, I was particularly interested—and peculiarly right on—a subject on

which certain reports were sent to the Prime Minister, although in my opinion they should have been sent to this House. They were made secret. I want to learn from the Lord President of the Council whether it is the intention of the Government to make those two—I think there were two reports—

Mr. Speaker: I would remind the hon. Member that the Motion speaks of "proceedings in this House," and I think reports, which he says were sent to the Prime Minister, were not proceedings in this House.

Mr. Stokes: With great respect, if a Committee is set up by this House for the purpose of investigating certain things and chooses to send its report to the Prime Minister and not to this House, surely we have a right to know why they did not send it to the House; or if they decided for special reasons that it was in the public interest that it should go to the Prime Minister, surely we are entitled to ask, when this general amnesty is being granted, that those two reports should be included in it, so that hon. Members may gain full knowledge of what the facts were at that time. Surely if the Committee are responsible to this House their report is part of the proceedings of the House. Am I to be for ever in the position that I must not refer to the fact that those two reports were made because they were made in secret?

Mr. Speaker: I admit that I had not realised that the hon. Member was referring to proceedings in a Committee. The Committee is responsible for its own actions, and if it takes those actions it is not necessarily responsible to this House unless this House has insisted on it. Those reports do not necessarily fall under the Motion we are discussing now.

Mr. McKinlay: From what my hon. Friend has said it appears to be obvious that some Members of the House kept notes of the proceedings during Secret Sessions, and I wish to ask whether it was not a breach of Privilege to keep a record, even privately, of what transpired in a Secret Session.

Mr. Speaker: Anything made public was a breach of Privilege.

Mr. Bowles: Surely the position was that either the notes or the


statements would have to be related to what took place in Secret Session. That is the great connecting point.

Mr. Speaker: I think it would refer to notes of a speech made in Secret Session. An hon. Member might have notes which he had prepared for a speech which he did not deliver.

Mr. Stokes: Let me set the minds of hon. Members at rest. I have nothing which conforms to the description of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay). I have not said yet that I spoke in a secret Debate. I have not yet said that I was here at any of the secret Debates. It is true that I said that I had never heard anything that was secret, but still I might not have been here to hear it at all. What I was really thinking about was all manner of things which come naturally into the hands of a Member of Parliament, sometimes used in one set of circumstances and sometimes in another, and I should have great pleasure in recording some things, from my memory and from published records, which would be of great historic interest. But to return to the point on which you set me down, Mr. Speaker, may I ask you how, then, do I proceed? I find myself in this difficulty, that the substance of what really matters, this very great issue, is contained in two reports which this House has never been allowed to see, and am I now never to be allowed to appeal to the Lord President of the Council or the Government Front Bench to make the necessary release which will allow of these documents being made public? It seems to me we are getting into an absurd position. The committee were responsible for investigating certain things at their discretion and reporting to this House. If in a national emergency they decide that the matter is so vital that it should not be made public, and that their report must be sent in secret to the Prime Minister, they can evade their responsibility to this House. I now wish to have the facts made clear, and I can never get the facts so ably and so well portrayed as they have been put in writing by a committee of this House, and I am only asking that those reports should be published. The whole country would be most interested in them, and I feel that now is the proper occasion

for their publication. I hope the Government will receive such good counsel in the matter as will enable them to make those reports available to all Members of the House.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Marlowe: The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) is obviously so bursting with anxiety to see this Motion carried, that it makes me suspicious whether it is a good Motion or not. Until he spoke, I thought the Lord President of the Council had made out a good case, with one exception that he spoke of general anxiety to remove the control. When he said that I noticed he could hardly stop laughing himself, and was very surprised at the accord and approbation which came from the benches behind him. I am not sure that this matter is quite so easy as one might imagine. I am wondering what safeguards there are against one hon. Member alleging that another hon. Member said something in Secret Session. There is no check on that at all. No record exists, and it would be open for any hon. Member to say that another hon. Member said something which he may, or may not, have said and it would not be actionable, and there would be no remedy against a person being very gravely slandered.
There is the matter of persons who are no longer hon. Members of this House and the converse of that, hon. Members of this House who were not hon. Members at the time when Secret Sessions took place, and I wonder what is the result of a communication, made from an hon. Member of the last House to an hon. Member of this House. I feel there are certain difficulties which have not perhaps been fully appreciated. I want to put this suggestion to the Lord President of the Council; there being no record of what has taken place, I imagine there must be fairly considerable records of some of the speeches made during those Debates. One has noticed an increasing tendency during the past few years for Front Bench speeches to be read, and it may well be that there are in existence written records of some of the speeches which have been made. If these things are to be made public, it would be desirable that at least an accurate record should be made. I suggest that such speeches as are available in writing, should be published, because that would ensure that such a record was accurate.


I ask that, if the Lord President of the Council can collate any existing speeches, if they are available, he will publish them to ensure accuracy.

Mr. Stokes: On a point of Order. Is not the hon. Member proposing a thing which is absolutely impossible? It is in your recollection, Mr. Speaker, that there are instances where it is suggested that the official record has been tampered with and in my recollection where it was tampered with, and there was a row in this House. Surely it is not suggested that speeches, not recorded at the time, should be made available now.

7.14 p.m.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: It seems to me that an hon. Member may have made a speech in a Secret Session which he would not have made, if he thought that his words would ever be reported. One may imagine that an hon. Member serving in the Army—I hasten to say I did not do this and it is not a breach of Privilege to say that—may have felt it incumbent upon him to make severe criticisms of his divisional commander, or methods of training in his unit, under a pledge of strict secrecy and on the understanding that it would never be divulged to any living soul. He would feel that in the highest opinions he was being disloyal to superiors, and he would not want it to be known even after the war.
As I understand it, speeches in Secret Session were made under the impression that they would never be made public. One may say these speeches will never be made public, but that it will only be parts of what is said to have been said which will be made public. That seems to me to make it more dangerous, because in the old days Parliament only took to official reporting because it was found to be an intolerable nuisance to have secondhand, and often fictitious, accounts published. It seems to me, we are getting back to the same position, and it would be wrong to provide this large amount of pabulum for the gossip writer of the future, and it may be entire guess work. Let us leave this thing decently buried where it is.

Mr. Stokes: May I ask the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) a question? Is he suggesting that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leamington (Mr. Eden) should be prevented from

writing his memoirs, because he cannot remember what he said in Secret Session?

Mr. Nicholson: I do not think the right hon. Member for Leamington is in the same difficulty as the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes). Everyone knows that, on every single occasion possible, the hon. Member for Ipswich speaks.

Mr. Stokes: On a point of Order. I have not said I spoke in a Secret Session.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member did not say "in Secret Session."

Mr. Nicholson: I do pity the hon. Member for Ipswich, because I am quite sure he never remembers what he said, and if he had spoken there would be a complete blank left for the recording angel.
It is unnecessary to rake up all these things. I think there is a slight element of breach of trust. People made speeches under the impression that they would be completely secret for evermore. It may have been that an attack on a foreign nation might be made, or one might have accused President Roosevelt of something dreadful, and would not like it to be known.

Mr. Stokes: That would be out of Order even in secret.

Mr. Nicholson: I think in decency the matter should be left where it was.

7.17 p.m.

Mr. Bowles: To take this discussion back to the personal point of view, I think that if I told anyone anything in confidence, that person would not be free until I released him from that confidence. I agree with the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) and I am perfectly sure that things were said which would not have been said at all if it was felt that at any time in the future there was going to be a release. There must be something very serious and punishable in some way, although in this House I know there is absolute Privilege. Supposing an hon. Member made a malicious, completely untrue statement of what another hon. Member had said, and it hit the headlines, it would put the attacked hon. Member in a very serious position, and there may be something—we know there are certain degrees of privilege


and if there is malice it often does destroy privilege, but in the House of Commons, I am perfectly well aware there is absolute Privilege—I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council could say something about that.
Are we really entitled, in this new House of Commons, to revoke a decision taken by an old House of Commons? After all, as the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) said, there are awkward situations as some hon. Members were in both Parliaments, some lost their seats in the last election and some became hon. Members in the last election. It is quite obvious we who were in the last Parliament were in Secret Sessions and, possibly, even talked to ex-Members of Parliament about what happened in Secret Session, but can ex-Members of Parliament discuss with new Members of Parliament what happened in Secret Session? Either Parliament is a continuous body or it ceases to be a body with one Parliament and becomes a new body at the begining of the next. I would also like to ask the right hon. Gentleman this question. I am sure he has given the matter greater consideration than I have. This is called the House of Commons. Nevertheless, it is a differently constituted body from that which was in existence during the war. Can this new House of Commons relieve hon. Members who spoke in the old House of Commons from the confidence which they were promised?

7.20 p.m.

Mr. McKinlay: I do not think we should dwell on the aspect referred to by the hon. Gentleman who has just resumed his seat, because, as I understand the position, if Parliament and its personnel change from time to time, Parliament still goes on. It is the custom to read from hon. Members' speeches. I think those of us who were present at the Secret Sessions never thought there was any necessity for guarded and carefully worded statements from Members of the Government Front Bench. I understood that the secrecy referred to back benchers and to front benchers with equal force. Secrecy was imposed on Members, and Cabinet Ministers had no privilege. I would like an assurance that if there exist in writing speeches delivered by Members of the

Government during those Secret Sessions, they will be destroyed, because we relied so much on secrecy that the only person who could give a direction or make a record would be Mr. Speaker himself. The Official Reporters were withdrawn. This applies with equal force to hon. Members, including back bench Members who carefully prepared their speeches. I do not think I am infringing the law in regard to Secret Sessions by saying that in Secret Session many things were said which hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen would never have got away with in open Session. If such documents exist today, I consider it would be a breach of faith if we let loose the stuff contained in documents which may have been kept, even by front bench Members. I do not think right hon. Gentlemen who held responsible posts in the Government during the war should have the exclusive publishing rights, so that an hon. Member would find in any memoirs which might be written, something which, from his recollection, was a quotation from a document used at a Secret Session. I think my right hon. Friend ought to give us some assurance upon that, because I think a back bencher has just as much right in this matter as anyone who sat on the front bench during the war.

7.23 p.m.

Mr. Lipson: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions. First, what was done with regard to Secret Sessions during the last war? Was any record made of those proceedings? Secondly, I would like to ask him whether the Government, before bringing forward this Motion, considered what would be the likely effect of the decision to publish a record of the proceedings in future Secret Sessions, if right hon. Gentleman and hon. Gentlemen know, as they did not know when the Secret Sessions were held during the war, that there would be a record of the proceedings. Have the Government considered whether it would be likely to weaken the value of those Secret Sessions?

7.24 p.m.

Major Gates: I wanted to ask a question for guidance. If this Motion is carried, will you, Sir, or will this House retain any redress or sanction which can be used against any report purporting to be a report of a Secret Session in this House which hon.


Members, in their recollection, may think is garbled or even inaccurate? Also, do His Majesty's Government propose, if any hon. Member desires to write an article or a report about a Secret Session, that it will have to be submitted to you, Sir, or to a Committee of this House for its accuracy to be tested?

7.25 p.m.

Mr. Butcher: I think the Lord President of the Council has very clearly indicated the difficulty in which this House finds itself. However, I think if there is to be publication by hon. and right hon. Members of certain speeches which they themselves may say they made in Secret Session, we are going to be in a very great difficulty. After all, the House at that time went into Secret Session, and not into a Session the publications of the reports of which should be delayed. We went into Secret Session so that hon. Members would be in a position to speak with frankness, and perhaps so that they would not have to pick and choose their words as they would have to do if the whole Press of the world were listening to them. Therefore, while I fully appreciate the difficulties of all of us who were present in the House in the earlier Sessions, I feel we would probably place ourselves in fewer difficulties if we allowed the matter to take its course naturally, rather than pass this Motion which would release the flood gates of recollection and, perhaps, imagination.

Mr. Stokes: May I put a question to my hon. Friend before he sits down? Does he suggest that if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), who never recollects anything he says, writes his memoirs, and I recollect something he did say, supposing he did speak, I am entitled to say that he has broken the law in regard to Secret Sessions and therefore he will get himself into trouble? It seems to me that we shall get into a hopeless jam.

7.28 p.m.

Mr. Braddock: In this matter I can speak as an outsider. I was not a Member of the House during these Secret Sessions, but I do know, as an ordinary member of the general public, that very great interest was taken in the activities of this House at that time. We did not know what was going on; we guessed sometimes, but we knew nothing.

I agree that this House can be complimented on the fact that the general public never knew anything about what went on in Secret Session. It was one of the outstanding facts of this war that so many things could be done for the benefit of the community, and that people who knew about them, because they knew the affairs of the country were at stake, kept very quiet about them. This applies not only to Members of this House, but to ordinary men all over the country. At any rate, this House should be complimented on that.
What the general public want to know, and it is right that they should know—I think we should have regard not to what Members of the present or the past House of Commons think about it, but to what the general public want to know—are the matters which were discussed and the decisions which were made. That is all the ordinary people of the country want to know. As regards what hon. Members actually said or what they thought about one another, I think, generally speaking, the people of this country will be very glad to hear what anybody said about anybody else. So far as that is concerned, let us have a free-for-all. Let us have no restrictions. Hon. Members who sat in this House then must learn how to take care of themselves, and out of this welter of contradiction and statement, possibly a certain amount of truth will emerge.

7.31 p.m.

Mr. Harold Macmillan: I do not wish to make heavy weather about this matter; but there is one point which I would like to clarify once more, for the sake of the record. In moving the Motion, the right hon. Gentleman said that it would be to the advantage of history. Unfortunately, that is not quite accurate. It would be to the advantage of gossip and not of history. Had we thought at the time that a Motion of this kind would be passed, it would really have been much better if we had an Official Record made of the speeches and carefully preserved under Mr. Speaker's care or under the care of one of his officers in the House. At the due moment, an actual and accurate record could be released for scholars and historians of what actually was said. That could have been done in the same way as, after a period of time, the despatches of Ambassadors and the papers of Government Departments


are made available. We have the accurate despatches. We have what the Ambassador really did write and what the Foreign Secretary really did telegraph back in reply to him.
We ought to warn the public of the danger that we shall never get any historical benefit from the passing of this Motion, and that we shall never have any accurate and historical account of the proceedings. As for what the hon. Member who last spoke said about decisions and so forth being published, all that side of it would be a very jejune affair, because the decisions were not the important part of the Secret Sessions. What was important was the speeches, the tone of the speeches, the things that were said. Those are the important things when men meet in council together. It is what Ministers say to each other in Cabinet meetings or what they telegraph in secret to our representatives that is important. It is the kind of way we talked under conditions of secrecy that is important, and not so much the decisions taken by the House, which were not really of great importance.
If we decide to pass the Motion I hope it will go out in every way that there will be no historical accuracy in any accounts which may be given of what somebody remembers or thinks he remembers of what somebody else said. We ought to give warning to people not to regard such statements as having historical value in any way. There will be a distinction between them and the kind of State paper released at the appropriate time for the use of historians. What we shall get will be the kind of report which was published in the 18th century of what was said to be the Proceedings and speeches of the House of Commons, and which were acrate only when they were compiled from the actual manuscripts of the great orators of those days. They will have very little value. We ought to impress that point upon the public, if we are to be treated to a flood of gossip, newspaper articles and stories of what this or that man said or did not say, not only about our own people, but perhaps about great foreign Statesmen, and about the difficulties that faced us in various parts of the world. The records will have no value, and should not be taken by serious historians as an accurate account of Debates in this House.

7.34 p.m.

Mr. Logan: I should like to make a few observations on this Motion. I heard an hon. Member say that there must be split minds in the House. If secrecy during the war is to be cancelled, the first matter that should be revealed to the public is the truth of any observations which might emanate as a result of that cancellation. I do not know how the British public will view statements that might be made by hon. Members of this House giving personal experiences of Secret Sessions. I find that memory gets very bad in regard to present matters, let alone secret affairs during the war, and I am very much afraid that garbled statements will be given to the public. I have read Aesop's Fables and I have heard about Ananias; I am afraid there might be a bit of each in such statements.
During the Secret Sessions, Members spoke freely because the country was in extremis. To write memoirs or titbits of gossip for the British public to read would have no value for the public. In my humble opinion the secrecy of those Sessions did well for England and it would be much better for this House to let those Sessions remain as secrets. I do not know what is in the minds of Ministers. I only know what is in my own mind. I have read condemnations and criticisms of history, and I know that it is very hard to get at the truth. There is usually a bias, and we have many biases in this House. I would not like any Member of this House, after revealing, in a partisan manner, things that have gone on, to be regarded as an authority. I am afraid that future generations, in 15 or 20 years, when judging writings emanating from would-be historians in the House, will not find many Venerable Bedes among them.
I know there is a feeling that the public would like the truth about the Secret Sessions, but those Sessions were the glory of this country and were beneficial to the whole nation. Many Members would not like the valuable things that happened during the crisis to be known at all. I ask Ministers, What purpose is there in this proposal, except gossip? What would be the use of publishing these things? No one in this House could definitely guarantee as true any statement that he published. Anything that gave a wrong view to the public would be bad for them and for the reputation of the House of


Commons. Unless there is a good reason and justification for it, it would be more discreet not to have the proposed cancellation.

7.39 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: As one who, in the early Secret Sessions, was under grave suspicion, I would like to make a remark or two on the matter. I would like information, if the Minister would give it. I am all for the Motion, and for making public anything that happened, but I am afraid that hon. Members will be disappointed if they expect to learn any secrets. It has to be remembered that there was usually a packed House of about 600 Members each time, and that it would have been very undesirable for any Minister to give away matters of serious strategical importance. Nobody expected Ministers to do so. We did, however, have many very interesting discussions, and if the Motion is carried I for one will be exceptionally truthful, though I cannot say that I am certain hon. Members on the other side will follow my example.
That is one of the great difficulties in a matter of this kind. If a speech is made in this House and something of a questionable character is said, it can be quoted outside the House from the Official Report—it can be quoted in the Press or on the platform and the person who quotes it is free from the law of libel. The law of libel in this country is very tricky; I wrote an article, a quiet persuasive article, on that subject a few months ago, and when it went into the hands of the lawyers they told me there were six possible libels in it, and it had to be modified in all those places. There are certain things I would like to say about certain Members and the part they took in the Secret Sessions, and if I say them and give what I consider to be quotations from their speeches, shall I be subject to the law of libel, or can we get the law of libel suspended so far as it relates to the Secret Sessions? If not, it will be very difficult to discuss some of the subjects and some of the Members. At the same time, even risking the law of libel, I am in favour of the ban being withdrawn, to allow us to dig out everything we can for presentation to the public. It will not do a great deal of harm if two hon. Members give two different accounts of the same Secret Session, say at some

conference which they may be attending, There will always be that possibility, and it will stimulate further discussion.
So, generally speaking it will be to the good if we are able to persuade the people of this country that, even though it was not possible for Ministers to divulge any serious matters of strategy or equipment, there were many things of historical interest discussed which can be revealed now that the danger is passed. I do not know whether any hon. Members will consider it worth while to draw attention to the fact that suspicion was directed against me by this House in Secret Session, and I am not giving any consideration to that. Although I happened to be the person involved, this House manifested a consideration and magnanimity which I appreciated very highly. In view of all the facts, some that may be bad but others that will be good, I think it is desirable that the ban should be lifted, and that the people of the country should get to hear from various sources the different items that we discussed and —this is important—the attitude of the Members of this House at a very perilous time. I think it is important that the atmosphere of that particular time should be given; it is more important even than the actual questions discussed.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. H. Morrison: I am much obliged to the House for the very friendly discussion on this Motion. I was considering whether I should say that I was grateful to the House for the friendly way in which the Motion has been received, but it is a little difficult to classify the discussion. It has certainly not been bitter or hostile, but whether one can say that it has been entirely cordial and unanimous I am a little doubtful. I hope that the explanations I am now about to give will enable the House to sec its way to give general assent to the Motion which I have put before it.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) said that he did not object to the Motion, and on the whole he was friendly about it. He did raise the point, which indeed has been raised by other hon. Gentlemen, as to what would be done about inaccurate reports. Here I can clear the decks with my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan), and say that this is not a Motion for the


promotion of reports. That is not the point. It is a Motion lifting the ban on the production of reports, if anybody wishes to make reference to what happened in Secret Session. There is no obligation on the authorities, or upon the Government, as a result of the carrying of this Motion, to publish reports of what happened. There is merely a liberty for the Officers of the House to include in the Journals of the House such ordinary notes of proceedings as they would have made if the House had not been sitting in Secret Session.
With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) about the law of libel, I entirely agree with him that it is a very tricky subject, and I would say to him that as there are not, and will not be, any authentic records of what was said in the House, I would not if I were he "chance my arm" by saying outside what somebody said inside the House. If it should prove that he is inaccurate, he might well be guilty of an offence under the law of slander or libel. Having given him that free advice, without being a Law Officer of the Crown, I hope he will count it to me for righteousness.
As I understand the situation, in the new circumstances there are three checks against irresponsibility. If a Member in the House were to proceed in the course of debate to allege that another Member in the last Parliament had, in Secret Session, said so and so, and were to proceed to give an account, particularly a garbled account, there being no record, it would presumably be a matter for your consideration, Mr. Speaker, as to whether that was within the limits of reasonable fairness in the conduct of debate. Clearly, the criticised Member would be at a disadvantage if there were no authentic record of the debate, and that would be a matter entirely for Mr. Speaker.

Earl Winterton: Would it not come under Standing Orders?

Mr. Morrison: Mr. Speaker sometimes rules other than under Standing Orders. Possibly a prima facie case for a Ruling by Mr. Speaker might arise, but it is not for me to say what Mr. Speaker would rule.

Mr. Bowles: Mr. Speaker may not have been in the Chair.

Mr. Morrison: That is true, but obviously it is a matter of equity and fairness, if Members were to allege that they were quoting when there is no authentic record of what really was said.

Mr. Eden: I do not want to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I think this is rather important. I do not understand how protection could be given in those circumstances. I do not see under what practice or precedent it could be done. The right hon. Gentleman said it would be a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, and I do not see how it could be so. Of course if you say it could be, I should be very glad to hear it.

Mr. Speaker: This is rather a hypothetical matter, and I do not quite know how the situation might arise. Suppose that a Member of the last Parliament was unfairly attacked. My first course would be to rise in the Chair to stop the speaker. But if we were to pursue it, I am inclined to think that it might become a prima facie case for the Committee of Privileges.

Mr. Morrison: I hope I may be excused for any presumption on my part. I said that a prima facie case might arise for the consideration of Mr. Speaker. The second point I want to make is that, of course, there is in any case no right of publication of Parliamentary Proceedings. Parliament forbears to interfere with publications that do take place, and there is formally no right of publication of Parliamentary Debates or proceedings. Therefore, if a person outside the House were to use reports of Secret Session Proceedings or indeed other Proceedings which were inaccurate, malicious or twisted, the House could regard that as a matter of Privilege if it so desired. That is the second avenue of protection.

Earl Winterton: Surely, the right hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that an ipse dixit of the House or of Mr. Speaker will cause a matter to be treated as a question of Privilege. It is far more complicated than that. If anything of the kind arose, it would have to be referred to the Committee of Privileges and they would have to take evidence to see whether a breach of Privilege had been committed.

Mr. Morrison: I did not say it would not have to be. The Noble Lord will fidget on these matters.

Earl Winterton: I am entitled to ask a question.

Mr. Morrison: I contemplated that it would go through the proper procedure and channels. I said that the power with regard to Privilege would remain with the House in regard to all publications of its Proceedings. The other point is that if things are said outside which are inaccurate or involve malice, the people concerned are open to take the remedy afforded by the law of libel and slander. Therefore, I do not think the House need have any apprehension that in passing this Motion we shall be automatically opening the floodgates to a whole lot of garbled or malicious reports.

Mr. Eden: I am troubled about this point. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to an inaccurate report being published. Who is to judge or to know whether a report is accurate or inaccurate when there is no record?

Mr. Morrison: I said that if there were an inaccurate or malicious report and therefore a prima facie case of libel or slander, I should have thought that any person who considered himself injured by such a statement made outside the House would be entitled to bring an action for slander. The right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington asked how is the person making the statement to be proved accurate or not. That is one of the risks which the purveyors of these statements would run. I should have thought there would be an additional risk if there were no record and therefore they could get no proof that the statement was actually made. I should have thought that in such a case the risk of damages would be possibly increased. In any case, people must think about that possibility.

Mr. Nicholson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that it might not be a question of personal slanders? What would be the position if I wished to discredit the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) and accused his party of atrocious conduct politically, or if I said that the Labour Party in the House had proved themselves to be defeatist, or if some hon. Member opposite said that about the Conservative Party? Statements of that sort would be just as serious as statements involving personal injury.

Mr. Morrison: It is not for me to get unduly far into a legal disquisition, but I have always understood that one could say pretty well what one liked about a political party collectively without much fear of an action in law, but that one must be very careful in what one said about individuals in those parties. I think that might be the answer to the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson). I make these observations only in order to do what I can to clear away apprehensions which appear to exist that if the Motion is passed it will automatically open the floodgates to all sorts of irresponsible and garbled accounts of what happened in Secret Session without there being any remedies. The remedies may be unsatisfactory, but there are possible remedies, and there are some considerations which people must bear in mind.

Mr. Marlowe: What is to be the protection if it is alleged that some member of the House who was killed in the war, or has died since the Secret Session, said certain things in that Secret Session? There is no protection for such a person under the law of libel.

Mr. Morrison: That unhappy circumstance would obtain whether the thing was said in Parliament, at a meeting of company shareholders, or anywhere else. It is bad luck if a man is libelled after he is dead and cannot answer back. I cannot deal with many of the points that were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), whom I congratulate upon having enjoyed himself so well. I am not as skilful as he is, and if I tried to answer him about the reports of the Select Committee which were sent to the then Prime Minister, I am afraid I might find myself out of Order. Perhaps he would not mind if we were to leave the matter to another day and occasion. My hon. Friend referred to garbled accounts, and I have sought to deal with that matter as best I could. The hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) made much the same point with regard to possibly inaccurate references by one Member to what another Member said. As to the question whether the Government propose to publish any reports, we do not have any such intention, and indeed the records do not exist. It is possible that some hon. or right hon. Gentlemen spoke from full notes at the time and may still have those full notes,


but it would be wrong for the Government to take those notes and publish them, and we do not propose to do so. Therefore, we as a Government and the House as a House will, I presume, be responsible for no reports whatever, except such very short notes of Proceedings as appear in the Journals of the House.
The hon. Member for Farnham said that it may have been the case that when hon. Members were speaking in Secret Session they may have said sincerely things which they would not have said in public Session. It may be, for instance, that a member of the Army may have made critical observations on his divisional commander and would be embarrassed if now they were to be referred to publicly. I see the point of that, but I come back to the main principle of the case, which is that the only reason for which the Government, and the only reason, I suggest, for which the House could reasonably have gone into Secret Session was on security grounds to prevent the enemy from knowing things which otherwise he might have known. If, then, in the course of the Debates hon. Members proceeded to make speeches of a character which they would not have made in public, irrespective of the security issue, I think we cannot very well take that into account at the present time. We were and are solely concerned with the security issue. If now any hon. Member would feel a little ashamed of an attack which he made on, say, his divisional commander becoming known, I think he had better not have made the attack at the time.

Mr. Bowles: Supposing that a very important Member of the last Government had made a very damaging and traducing attack on the head of another State—[Hon. Members: "He would have been out of Order."]— what would be the position? Perhaps I might have a word with my right hon. Friend later on this, because I think it would be a real international danger.

Mr. Morrison: I am not saying, and neither is my hon. Friend, whether that is so or not, but this I will say, in general terms, to my hon. Friend. In so far as there might be any such possibility, or other possibilities of an embarrassing character, the Government have taken them fully into account. We have considered all the possible instances which

might, for one reason or another, be embarrassing and we do not think, on balance, that the House need to be worried on that point. That is the personal judgment which I and my colleagues have reached. The hon. Member for Farnham also said that the impression at the time was that there would be secrecy for evermore. I am not sure about that. I would very much doubt whether those participating in Secret Session were sworn to secrecy for evermore. There was in my mind the assumption that at some time the ban would be lifted or that somehow things would begin to come out. I think that Members were not legitimately under the impression that there would be secrecy for all time.
I think I have covered the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles). There was the point about malicious reports, and he went on to the point of whether this House, being a later House, was entitled to act in a different way. But vis-a-vis this matter of secrecy, Parliament is a continuing institution, and we repeal Acts of Parliament. There will be a Bill presently repealing the Trades Disputes Act, 1927. I agree that it is not a perfect analogy, but nevertheless, this Parliament is entitled to judge whether it is or is not in the public interest that secrecy should continue. I see the point, but this is a legitimate thing for the House to do. I think I have dealt with the point of the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay) as to the question of any record. As there is no record, he need not be apprehensive.

Mr. McKinlay: There were speeches delivered which were in manuscript, and I want an assurance that no Member of the late Government or of the present Government—

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member says that speeches were made in manuscript, he is disclosing something. He should have said that there may have been speeches made in manuscript.

Mr. McKinlay: I qualify that, Mr. Speaker, by saying that there may have been speeches made in manuscript. I want to be assured that on a future date, possibly not very far away, no Member, either of this Government or of the last Government, should use any of those speeches in preparing a memoir.

Mr. H. Morrison: No, Sir, if it were the case that an hon. or right hon. Gentleman spoke from full notes and had a manuscript and he wished to publish what he thought he had said, this Motion does not prevent him from doing it, but, on the contrary, enables him to do it. I do not see why he should not; there is no question of the Government doing it. I will come back to the point later in dealing with another aspect of the matter. The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) spoke of what happened in the last war. What happened after the last war was that the corresponding Defence Regulation remained in force until all the outstanding Regulations lapsed in 1921. There was evidently a greater feeling of secrecy in those days than there is on the part of the present Administration. It is true that the ban on secrecy in the last war has never been lifted. That is a point both for me and against me—a point for me in virtue and against me in precedent. But the scale of secrecy was greater on this occasion. There were many more Secret Sessions and it was not thought right to take action after 1918. I thought that the ban was bad and ought to have been lifted. The fact that the Defence Regulation was repealed and the Privilege ban was not lifted did not prevent, if my memory serves me rightly, one or two very distinguished statesmen embodying in memoirs what they or someone else said in some Secret Sessions of Parliament and no action was taken by the House or by the Committee of Privileges upstairs. We had better face the fact that this has to be put right and there is no use keeping the ban on when we know the ban will not be observed.

Mr. Bowles: In regard to memoirs of eminent statesmen of the last war, did I understand my right hon. Friend to say that Mr. Lloyd George made a certain statement in some Secret Session?

Mr. Morrison: I am speaking from memory and I said nothing about Mr. Lloyd George. [Interruption.] My recollection is that they could get over all that; after a time, it was assumed that the ban was no longer operative. It is better to face that at this point. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. Braddock) said fairly—and Members of the old House would be grateful—that as far as we know the House was very good

in keeping the secrets of Secret Sessions. I believe that that was so, and when one remembers that there were 615 people involved, it is very creditable. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) raised a point about the historical significance of it, and that if there was no record, no data could be added to history. I confess that on the historical point I am confined to two pleadings in defence. One is, that the authorities of the House will be able to complete the gaps in the Commons Journal. That is some factual information of what happened and raw material for history, as far as it goes. It may be that things will be said elsewhere or some speeches may be published. I am not inciting anybody to publish speeches. It will also add to our historical knowledge of the time. This is the best I can do. It is the production of raw material for history, not a full and comprehensive historical contribution.
He raised the point whether it would be better that an official record should be made. I see the point, but there was no record at the time. If reporters had been in the gallery, there would have been many points of Order as to whether it was a Secret Session. There were no reporters, records do not exist, and there can be no authentic report. I have dealt with points raised by other hon. Members. I am obliged to the House for what has been an exceedingly interesting and clear discussion. I was ready, and I had the anticipation that we might have got into an interesting and tangled discussion about this before we had done with it. The House has been remarkably clear. The discussion has been very fair, and I am grateful to hon. Members for their contributions, and I hope that the House —though I recognise by some shaking of heads that there is doubt in some quarters —will agree to this Motion.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams: I thought this was a very clear Debate until the right hon. Gentleman began his speech, but he has managed, so far as I am concerned, rather to confuse the issue.

Mr. Morrison: Is not that the usual experience?

Mr. Williams: No, it is very unusual, if I may say so, from the right hon. Gen-


tleman, who began his speech in a Christmas-like spirit when he talked about Members saying things about each other. I am not controverting that, but I was a little worried later on, because I was afraid that other hon. Members might be accusing me of being a blackleg lawyer, and that would have been a horrible position. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that, as far as the last war is concerned, at any rate, there is a different precedent. I do not see why we should be ruled, in a matter of this sort, purely by precedent. In all probability, it would be a very good thing if, at some time, there could be a rather fuller report than the right hon. Gentleman has suggested of what actually happened in these Secret Sessions. I know there could be no true report, in the sense of its having been taken down, but might it not be possible to reach some sort of agreement whereby the general lines of the Debates could be given, so that the public would have something which, if not fully accurate, would be rather more accurate than the sort of thing which I, or any other hon. Gentleman, might say about what we thought happened two or three years ago? I think that point is worth considering.
It is rather a pity that we are being asked to pass this Motion tonight in a comparatively thin House, when a great deal of doubt has been expressed from many different quarters and from the opposite side as much as from this side of the House, and when we really have not got down to considering what is to be the effect of the Motion. I wonder whether it might not be possible, as we are now at the end of a Session, and in view of these very great doubts, to meet the wishes of the House, not necessarily by postponing this Motion indefinitely, but by allowing us to have a look at it, and to work it out in negotiations between the Front Benches. These always make things very much easier. There might also be consultations between the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), who seems to have some bee in his bonnet on this matter. Perhaps the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) might also help, as Father of the House.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must realise that, in regard to the record, I alone am responsible for it, and, therefore, the hon. Member is suggesting that I should do these things. I submit that I cannot do this during the Recess, and I do not feel prepared to do so at the moment.

Mr. Williams: I very much regret that I should infringe on your privileges, Mr. Speaker. Of course, obviously, such a record would not be possible on those lines, and I should be the very last, Sir, to wish to take away any of your privileges. On the other hand, I do not think it would be quite fair to put the burden on your shoulders, Mr. Speaker, and I say so with very great respect. I seriously suggest that, in a matter such as this, which the House has not considered very deeply and of which it has not been apprised for very long, the Government should give us time to think over it again. The Government themselves do not seem very anxious to lift the veil of secrecy at Question Time. I think further consideration should be given to this matter and that we should deal with it after the Christmas Recess, when we have had a real chance to consider it.

Mr. Stokes: Did I understand the Leader of the Opposition correctly? Did he not state that, in general, he agreed to the Motion, from which the House would understand that he had seen and understood it?

Mr. Williams: I am not responsible for the leaders of any party. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman had excellent reasons for what he said, but that is no reason why we should not ask for further time. I urge the House to take a line which I think we might well take. We have had a very friendly discussion, and I do not want to take the matter out of that sphere, but, would it not be better, when we come back after Christmas, for the Government to put a stronger case then they have put tonight, perhaps with some amplification of the legal side of the matter as well?

Resolved:
 That no proceeding in this House during the last Parliament held in Secret Session be any longer secret.

COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES (REPORT)

Order (18th June, 1942) relative to the Report from the Committee of Privileges on the matter of the complaint referred to their consideration on 5th May, 1942, read.

8.15 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I beg to move,
 That so much of the Order [18th June, 1942] as relates to the disclosure, or purported disclosure, of the contents of the Report of the proceedings of, or evidence taken before, the Committee in reference to such complaint, or any portion or the substance thereof, be discharged.

Mr. Bowles: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is really any need for him to move this Motion? I think it is quite a different thing, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will not commit himself by moving it.

Mr. Morrison: I move the Motion because I think it is an act of justice to an hon. Member of the House. I think so, but, of course, I will listen to any observations that may be made upon it. I think it is right. The Motion is consequential upon that to which the House has just agreed, and I do not think it raises any new issue. It refers to the Report of the Committee of Privileges presented on 23rd June, 1942, and the proceedings leading up to that Report. It refers to Mr. Speaker's report of what took place in the Secret Session of 25th June, 1942, which was reported in Hansard in column 2173:
 The House considered the Report of the Committee of Privileges presented on the 23rd June upon the matter of the complaint referred to it on 5th May, in respect of a Member charged with having committed a breach of Privilege by disclosing a portion of the proceedings of the Secret Session of 23rd April. The House agreed with the Report of the Committee of Privileges that the charge had not been proved and in the result absolved the hon. Member of the charge."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th June, 1942; Vol. 380, c. 2173.]
As I have said, the hon. Member concerned was absolved of the charge against him, but we felt that it was only fair to ask the House to agree to publication in full of the Report of the Committee of Privileges in the case.
This Motion is necessary because the Journal only records the fact that the House agreed with the Committee of

Privileges in their Report on the charge brought, but it does not say what the finding of the Committee was, and that seems to us to be unfair, as a record, in relation to the hon. Member concerned. While the Motion which the House has just passed will make it possible to disclose anything said in the Debate on the Report, it will still be forbidden, unless the Motion which I am now moving is passed, to disclose anything about the contents of the Report accepted in Secret Session. We are satisfied that there are no security objections to publication, and we think, further, for the reasons that I gave when I spoke on the previous Motion, that it is right, for the sake of the public and the country, that, when the risks to security have passed, the secrecy ban should be lifted. I hope that this Motion, which is really consequential on the one which has just been adopted by the House, will be accepted.

Mr. Bowles: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May I ask you to ask hon. Members not to refer to this in any detail in case we do not pass the Motion? I think it will be quite clear to hon. Members what I mean. The Lord President referred to an hon. Member. Surely we do not want to refer to him by his constituency until this Motion is passed.

Mr. Morrison: I thought so.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I think that would be desirable. I doubt if I have any authority to enforce it upon hon. Members but I hope they will be good enough to abide by that suggestion.

8.21 p.m.

Earl Winterton: The right hon. Gentleman, as he was fully entitled to do, said in reply to a question which I put on the previous Motion that I was both hasty and inquisitive. I am sure he will not mind my telling him that it is unfortunately the case that the Leader of the House, however great the position he occupies in this House, in the world outside—and for all I know, in the next world—has to put up with both haste and inquisitiveness in those who disagree with him. Surely, therefore, he will forgive my haste and inquisitiveness in putting a few questions now.
I do not in the least agree that this Motion follows on the previous Motion, although I agree entirely with the right


hon. Gentleman that the matter of whether justice is or is not done to a certain hon. Member, whose constituency I do not propose to specify, raises one or two rather serious questions. I have to tell hon. Gentlemen opposite—no doubt they will think me a most improper person to be a Member of it—that I am a Member of the Committee of Privileges. Purely by way of parenthesis, I am also a Member of two Select Committees. For the moment, at any rate, Committees are staffed by Tories as well as Socialists, although how long that will continue under the present Government, I do not know; it may be that all Committees in future will have only Socialists on them. Having made that confession, may I, with the greatest respect, through you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, make to hon. Gentlemen opposite and to the Leader of the House a few observations with which I think some of my colleagues on the Committee of Privilege would be in agreement?
In the first place, I think I am right in saying that this is the first time that there has been any Motion which took away from the Committee of Privileges the right that it had at the time of meeting in secret; that is to say, I think there has been no other case of deleting the right of secrecy which the Committee of Privileges had at the time by right of Resolution of this House. Perhaps I am asking for something which is unnecessary, but will the right hon. Gentleman make it plain that this ought not, in any way, to be taken as a precedent? There are all sorts of matters which, for various reasons, it might be desirable that the Committee of Privileges should consider in secret, and it would be undesirable if, in the future, we were told, "Oh, no, it is quite true that on such and such a date the Committee of Privileges considered the thing in secret, but the subsequent Parliament has decided that the secrecy should be abandoned." Therefore, my first point is a valid one, which I hope will be supported on both sides of the House, that the right hon. Gentleman should make it very clear that this is not a precedent, but is merely intended, as he claimed, to do justice to a certain hon. Member.
Though the right hon. Gentleman has had the best available advice on the subject, and I am prepared to be told I am wrong, I suggest, in the second place, that

this Motion goes much further than it need have done. In order to do justice to this hon. Member, all that it is necessary to do, surely, is for the House to pass the following:
 That so much of the Order [18th June, 1942] as relates to the disclosure, or purported disclosure, of the contents of the Report of the Committee of Privileges on the matter of the complaint referred to their consideration on 5th May, 1942, be discharged.
The Motion goes much further than that. It says: "or of the Proceedings of." I do not know, and I do not propose to trouble the Chair with a rather tortuous point of Order which it might be difficult to answer offhand, what are the Proceedings of the Committee of Privileges. If one were making use of the ordinary meaning of language, it would mean that everything we discussed in private—and we discuss matters of the most secret character in private, as the right hon. Gentleman is well aware, being Chairman of the Committee of Privileges—could, under this Motion, be made public. I hope we can have an assurance that that is not so, and I cannot for the life of me see why it is not possible to pass the Order in the terms I have suggested.
Again, I do not know what is meant by "or evidence." I must not, of course, disclose what the evidence was, but I would say to those who had doubts on the previous Motion that I think their doubts would be increased on this one. What right have we to publish evidence of witnesses before the Committee when they were told that their evidence was secret? Have the witnesses who gave evidence been consulted as to whether they have any objection to the evidence being made public? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, why it is necessary to make their evidence public, and will he interpret what is the meaning of the words "or of the proceedings of "? I should have thought it would have been far better merely to publish the Report, which would be amply sufficient to show that any hon. Member accused in any way in connection with these matters has been discharged as not guilty, of the offence.

Mr. H. Morrison: I do not know whether there is any misunderstanding, but I think the Noble Lord's point is met in the last line of the Motion:
 That the Report (without the Minutes of Evidence) be
reprinted.

Earl Winterton: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman; that does, I think, meet my point, although there is a reference in the paragraph above to the evidence taken before the Committee, and on its strict interpretation by the courts of law—whose interpretation of the meaning of English would be quite different from the interpretation put upon the meaning of English by the remarkable Procedure of this House because, in this House, everything means something quite different from what it means in ordinary English—I think it would be held that while it was not possible to publish the Minutes of Evidence, one might disclose what the evidence was.

Mr. Morrison: I think that is right.

Earl Winterton: As I say, when we get into the realms of what English means as interpreted by successive occupants of the Chair—with great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—and by the lower Chair, we are on very dangerous ground. Something will be said about it, perhaps, when the Committee on Procedure reports. I should have thought that the ordinary meaning of the Motion was that it was possible to state what was the evidence. I think we all want to see justice done to this particular hon. Member, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make it very clear that this is not a precedent and will answer at once as to why it is necessary to have the Motion in the form in which it is.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Bowles: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that there were two hon. Members, one within a month of the other, who were taken before the Committee of Privileges. One of them—not this one of course—was referred to by a certain right hon. Gentleman by his constituency, and as the result of that the Committee of Privileges sat in public, and when their report was presented to this House it was debated, in this House, in public. In other words, the hon. Gentleman in question, who is still a Member of this House, was able to stand up in the House—I heard him myself—to justify himself in a long and very able speech. So far as that case is concerned, the country knew who it was, and there was no further question about his being guilty of disclosing secrets, and the result was that he was cleared. He had the

opportunity to clear himself in public debate in this House.
The other hon. Gentleman was not in quite the same position. He was never referred to by name, when the question was put to Mr. Speaker as to whether there had been a breach of Privilege. I think that I am right in saying that the House went into Secret Session, and no one, except the Members of the last Parliament and officials of the House, knew to whom we were referring. Therefore, the whole matter touching this hon. Member was kept secret from beginning to end and is still a secret today, except, of course, that it can now be disclosed under the Motion which we passed a few minutes ago. I cannot see the point in disclosing or calling any public attention, or the attention of any hon. Member of this House, new or old, to the fact that this man was, at any time, in trouble. Albeit, he got out of the trouble, and it seems gratuitous that we should bring this matter up again. Why do it? As we get older, we know that there is some justification for the old saying, "No smoke without fire." I hope, having regard to the difference of the two cases, and the fact that the hon. Gentleman's name is still secret, that my right hon. Friend will pay some regard to what I am saying.
I was interested in what the Noble Lord was saying, and I tried to say, on the last Motion, what he has just said on this Motion. I still do not think that it is right for this House to reveal, without their permission, the names of persons who were parties to these proceedings. It seems immoral. I say quite frankly to the right hon. Gentleman: Would he be prepared to disclose to the public the Cabinet Minutes of 15, 20 or 30 years ago? Surely, Cabinet Ministers meet in the real belief that always will their Cabinet conversations be kept secret. Would the right hon. Gentleman ever consider it fair that a subsequent Government, 15 years hence, should disclose speeches, decisions and conversations which he had with his Cabinet colleagues at the present time and during last year? He indicates that he would not. I therefore see no reason why we should depart from that principle. I still feel very strongly about this, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree with me that this is quite gratuitous. It is not a logical conclusion to the earlier


Motion which we passed. I am sure that the Cabinet has given this matter serious consideration, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind what I have said by way of comparison with the other case, with which he is equally familiar. The hon. Gentleman's name is still unknown to the world, and why should he be dragged through the mud again, because it is thought that it may be a logical thing to do?

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Marlowe: I do not like this Motion at all, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider it. He appears to think that this is, as it were, consequential on the preceding Motion. That is really not so. It is a different matter altogether. Here, there is a question affecting the hon. Member about whom an inquiry has been made in circumstances under which, it was understood at the time, were to be secret. The right hon. Gentleman—I am sorry that he is so busily engaged; I realise that of course he has to work as well as listen. I wish that he would bear in mind that he did say that he felt that it was doing an injustice to the hon. Member concerned, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether the best judge of that is not the hon. Member himself. I do not know, but perhaps he would be able to tell us, whether the hon. Member concerned has been consulted and whether he has expressed his wish that this course should be taken.

Mr. H. Morrison: There are three points involved. The decision which the House has just reached will cause the name of the hon. Member concerned to appear on the Journals of the House with certain implications of improper conduct on his part—implications, that is all. Unless this Report of the Committee of Privileges, which clearly on its recommendations came out in his favour, is now released from the ban, the hon. Gentleman is without proper clearance and, therefore, there will be implications against him in the Journals without the Report of the Committee which clears him. At any rate, I have an agreement with the hon. Gentleman who was himself a bit worried about the first Motion if something was not done on the lines of the second. Therefore, I cannot see that there is anything

but the greatest liberal feeling on the part of the Government in this matter and I was shocked that the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) held such conservative views tonight.

Mr. Marlowe: The right hon. Gentleman has made three very good points. I see the strength of the case which he has made, and I certainly think that it is a good one. Before leaving this matter, however, I should like to support the Noble Lord with regard to the publishing of the evidence. In spite of the words that appear at the end of the Motion, the Motion as it now stands amounts to a publication of the evidence of the Committee of Privileges. The first position as that there is a ban on the publication of evidence, and this Motion suggests that the ban should be lifted, and, therefore, permits publication of the evidence. The words which the right hon. Gentleman referred to, and drew attention to, at the end of the Motion are merely an affirmative and substantive Motion that they be now printed. That is a separate Motion which really forms part of this Motion. It seems, as the Motion stands at the moment that the evidence is also to be disclosed, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the wording with regard to that.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Stokes: I must express my surprise that the Noble Lord should not recognise that this Motion must follow the previous one that has just been passed.

Earl Winterton: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I said all that was necessary, in order to follow the last Motion, was to publish the Report and not the Motion in the form in which it stood.

Mr. Stokes: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. The point I wish to make is that in the case where the hon. Gentleman's name was mentioned, and which subsequently went before the Committee of Privileges, the case was heard in public and there was a Debate in public on the merits of the case. The views expressed by hon. Members as to whether the matter should be referred to the Committee of Privileges or not are on the records of the House. In this particular case there is no such record. There was a Debate in secret as to whether it should go to the Committee of Privileges or not. Certain


people expressed their views, but they are not on the record. My recollection is that several people were violently opposed to the matter being taken there at all. It is of the utmost importance that it should be recognised that, whereas there is a record in the case of the first hon. Gentleman, there is no record of what was said in secret on the other case before it was referred to the Committee of Privileges. I think it desirable to have it on record now.

8.43 p.m.

Mr. Messer: I cannot quite understand where the confusion arises. It seems to me that, after having carried the first Motion, we are now placed in the position, in consequence of it, that the name of the hon. Member in the second instance will be made public. What will then be known is that he was found not guilty. But the Committee of Privileges itself will be protected if it is known on what that decision was based. Unless this second Motion is carried, we shall then only know the name.

Mr. Morrison: It is worse than that, it will be revealed that there was, so to speak, a charge against the hon. Gentleman, and it will not be known that the tribunal, namely, the Committee of Privileges, to which it was referred found him not guilty. It seems to me that would be monstrous.

Mr. Messer: I was going to develop the point to show that the Committee of Privileges will be protected because by the second Motion the evidence on which their decision was based will be made public. I think that is fair.

8.44 p.m.

Mr. Morrison: In a way, the intervention I made when interrupting the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) is my case. In the House on 18th June, 1942, my right hon. Friend the present Prime Minister moved quite a long Motion of a most exceptional order fettering the ordinary process of publication of a Report of the Committee of Privileges with regard to this case. I am speaking from memory, but my recollection is that the Committee of Privileges was fettered in the matter of publication because the whole thing was bound up with what had happened in Secret Session. Therefore, if a Secret Session had followed, the

Report would have had to be secret also. All this was most exceptional, and, on grounds of general principle, thoroughly objectionable. The purpose of this Motion is to get rid of this exceptional interference with the Committee of Privileges.
With regard to the observations of the Noble Lord I do not think I accused him of inquisitiveness. Although I may have used some other adjective, I do not think I used one as hard as that. As he knows, he and I have a high regard for each other. The arguments of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) were really shockingly Conservative tonight. I think he swung right to the Right. I am very sad about it, but I have no doubt he will bob up on the Left some other day and be even more embarrassing on that account than he was tonight. The Noble Lord and I do manage to quarrel almost every time we have an interchange in the House, but there is no bad feeling behind it at all and, if I may say so, I think he made a fair request when he asked that what we are doing tonight should not in itself be regarded as a precedent. I quite agree with him. I justify this case on its merits and, as I have said, I quite agree it should not be held to be a precedent as to future conduct. In this case, we do not propose to print the Minutes of Evidence, although I admit that we are proposing to lift the privilege ban from the proceedings of the Committee and the evidence taken before the Committee. To that extent it might, in some way and at some time, find public quotation, but that is exceedingly unlikely, and I do not think there would be any embarrassment to the witnesses or others concerned. The documents are in the possession of the officers of the House and no doubt they would exercise a proper discretion as to whom they would be made available. I do not think there is much need to have apprehension on that point.
The simple issue is that the original Motion will put the name of the hon. Member concerned in a certain light on the journals of the House. It is not fair that we should leave it there. In fairness to the hon. Member, we must publish the Report. He was going to be here, and he might have taken part in the Debate. No doubt he has had to go, but it was weeks, if not months ago, that I had a conversation with him about the first Motion which I knew would raise this


issue, and, in fairness to him, I had a talk with him about it. The second Motion I am now moving was a result of that conversation and is a concession to what I thought was a fair point made on his behalf. I assure the House that this Motion is moved out of a sheer sense of justice to the hon. Member, to whom, otherwise, an injustice would be done.

Resolved:
 That so much of the Order [18th June, 1942] as relates to the disclosure, or purported disclosure, of the contents of the Report or of the proceedings of, or evidence taken before, the Committee in reference to such complaint, or any portion or the substance thereof, be discharged."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

Report (without the Minutes of Evidence) to be reprinted.—[No. 47.] [Mr. H. Morrison.]

BUILDING MATERIALS AND HOUSING BILL

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.—[One with special entry.]

ELECTIONS AND JURORS BILL

Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments.

Ordered:
 That the Lords Amendments be now considered."—[Mr. Oliver.]

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 18.—Approval of Regulations by Parliament.)

Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 31, leave out ("by prorogation") and insert (" or prorogued ").

8.50 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Oliver): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is a purely drafting Amendment.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 14, line 37, agreed to.

CLAUSE 25.— (Short title.)

Lords Amendment: In page 16, line 25, at end, insert:
and shall be included among the Acts which may be cited as the Representation of the People Acts.

Mr. Oliver: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment will enable this Bill to be included among the Measures which go by the common title of the Representation of the People Acts. In the absence of this Amendment, it would have to be cited separately.

CANADIAN ARMED FORCES PERSONNEL (AFFILIATION ORDERS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Mathers.]

8.52 p.m.

Earl Winterton: I desire to put some questions to the Under-Secretary of State for the Dominions, arising out of a Question I asked him a fortnight ago. As there seems to be more time than usual, perhaps I might recall to the House what the Question was. I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs:
If he is aware that instances have occurred where affiliation orders made against members of the Canadian Forces have not been carried out owing to the soldier or airman concerned having returned to Canada; and if he will communicate with the Dominion of Canada with a view to seeing if such orders can be made enforcible in Canada? 
The hon. Gentleman replied:
 If an affiliation order is made by a court against a Canadian soldier, the Canadian military authorities make such deductions as they deem appropriate from the pay of the soldier concerned for the benefit of the mother. These deductions cease on the man's discharge from the Forces, and there is thereafter no way in which payment of the order can be enforced by the Canadian military authorities. Civil proceedings can, however, then be taken in the appropriate Canadian court. It would be difficult to ask the Canadian Government to pass special legislation for the enforcement of affiliation orders made in this country, since no provision exists in United Kingdom legislation for the enforcement here of affiliation orders made in Canada.
I went on to say:
 Surely the hon. Gentleman must realise how profoundly unsatisfactory his answer will be to these unfortunate people? How can some poor girl institute proceedings in Canada? I desire to give notice that I shall raise the matter at the earliest possible moment, as I think a gross injustice is being done.


The Under-Secretary then said, though, if I may say so, he was out of Order, as I had already given notice that I would raise the matter on the Adjournment:
 Very few cases have arisen up to now, but we are keeping a watch on the matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December, 1945; Vol. 416, cols. 1924-5.]
I shall show that so far from that being true, as the Under-Secretary will probably admit now, after inquiry, a very large number has arisen. I shall refer to some very poignant cases that have come to my notice.
I wish to make one or two points clear. First, I am speaking entirely for myself and am not representing the views of my hon. and right hon. Friends, although I have no reason to believe that my colleagues would disagree with my view. Secondly, and this may be considerably-more disputable, I think it is undesirable in general for Privy Councillors and ex-Cabinet Ministers to ballot for the right to raise matters on the Adjournment. I think that because we are notoriously entitled by long standing precedent, which the Chair, even if it wished to do so, which it does not, could not break, to certain privileges in this House, we should not avail ourselves of the Private Member's right to raise matters on the Adjournment. I stand to some extent apologetically at this Box for having raised this question. I only do so because it affects quite a number of my constituents, and because it is a most poignant matter.
When I say that no party issue could arise, it is only right to say to the Undersecretary that I do not consider that this Government can be held to blame for the situation as it exists. It was one of the things they took over from previous Governments, but I would venture to go a little further, and I hope that this will not be considered contentious. They will be very much to blame if, when they have heard the evidence which I propose to give, and which I hope will be supported by at least one hon. Gentleman opposite, if he is fortunate enough to be called—I am anxious to emphasise that this is not a party matter—they do not say they are then prepared to take some action. I am prevented by the Rules of the House from discussing whether or not reciprocal legislation, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, is possible or not. Technically I would be entitled to press for legislation in Canada, because under

the Ruling, as I understand it—it is, I think, not a Rule of the House but the result of a Ruling of a previous Speaker —one cannot refer to legislation on the Adjournment, or deal with a matter requiring legislation. But that Ruling does not refer to matters on which other countries might legislate.
I am concerned to argue that, whether it is possible or desirable that there should be reciprocal legislation, which it would be out of Order to deal with fully, the matter can be handled without legislation, at any rate, so as to ensure a reduction of the gross and poignant injustice by certain actions which I shall suggest. I know Canada fairly well. I have relations in that country, I own some small property there. I have been there a great many times, and I happen to have had nearly 35 years' friendship with the right hon. Gentleman the great Prime Minister of that country. I shall say no word in derogation of that great Dominion. It is because I intensely admire its superlatively brave and kind hearted people that I make an appeal, which is a very real one, which comes from my heart, to the Canadian people and to the Canadian Parliament to see that a wrong is righted. This problem is considerably greater 1han the Minister was prepared to admit. I have a lot of letters here from different parts of the country saying what has happened, and I have received others since I put the Question. I have sent some of them to the hon. Gentleman, but not all of them.
It is a simple process; an affiliation order is made against a Canadian Service-man at the instance of a girl over here. So long as he is in the Army the amount is deducted from his pay, as in the same way as in the case of the British Forces. He then goes to Canada. I am dealing only with the Canadian problem, because that particularly affects my constituents, but the same problem may arise in the case of Australia and other countries as well. The soldier returns to Canada, and if he is discharged there are no means of obtaining the money from him. I am most anxious not to be unduly critical, because I want to put this matter on a non-party basis, but the hon. Gentleman said in his reply that it was possible for civil proceedings to be taken in the appropriate Canadian court. I do not want to make a rude observation to the hon. Gentleman who is to answer, but how can it be


seriously suggested that some unfortunate girl, perhaps 18 years of age, who has been betrayed, can institute civil proceedings in a Canadian court to see that her wrong is righted? The thing is quite impossible.
I have two suggestions to make before I come to my main suggestion, which is the most important of all. I sent on these suggestions to the hon. Gentleman in order to give him a chance of considering them. I think he might ask the Ministry of Defence in Canada—and the same would apply mutatis mutandis in the case of the Ministries of Defence of other Dominions —to refuse to grant demobilisation credits in money and kind to any Canadian Serviceman who has had a British affiliation order made against him unless he gives satisfactory assurances of his willingness to pay the money to the girl whom he has betrayed. It might have a considerable effect if the man knew that he would not get his £50 or £60 or any civilian clothes. My second proposal, which is one to which I hope the hon. Gentleman will give particular attention, is that the British High Commissioner in Canada should be instructed to institute proceedings on behalf of any British woman who has failed to obtain money which is due to her under an affiliation order made in this country. He should institute proceedings on her behalf in a Canadian court. The unfortunate girl might have no means of giving direct instructions, but as soon as she had notified the authorities there a case could be brought in the court in Canada. I think that should be done.

Mr. Logan: Taking the place of a "poor man's lawyer" on behalf of the girl?

Earl Winterton: Yes, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for the suggestion. The most important thing of all is that the hon. Gentleman should give us an assurance—I make no complaint that he did not do so when I originally raised the matter—that he will enter into discussions, if he has not already done so, with the Dominion Government. He could perfectly well give us such an assurance without breaking the rule of the House that subjects which call for legislation cannot be raised on the Motion for the Adjournment. Even if the result of his discussions did mean that it would be necessary to introduce legislation, that legislation need

not be referred to tonight. I do not want to quote these letters, but believe me, they are really of a most poignant character; and there is no reason to suppose that the letters I have received, of which there are a considerable number, represent the whole of the case. Nearly every one of the writers says that the Undersecretary is wrong in thinking that this is an unimportant matter. Perhaps he did not say that. Therefore, I do hope that we may get an assurance from him, because I am just as determined in non-party matters as I am in party matters, and I say frankly that I am determined to pursue this matter continuously until we get justice, and I hope other hon. Members will take the same line, and it would be a great assurance if the hon. Gentleman would tell us that he was going to enter into negotiations at once.
I conclude on this observation, that this is only a bucket in relation to the huge sea of misery and anxiety which encompasses the world at the present time, but that is no reason why we should not use that bucket to reduce that sea. Let it go out from this House tonight to these unfortunate people, these correspondents who have written to me, some of whom are in a most desperate position, that, irrespective of party, we are determined to do what we can to see that this evil is cured.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. Driberg: I wish to speak only for a minute or two, to lend my support to what the noble Lord has said. He has raised this matter not as a party issue at all, but as a human issue which is, to some extent, obstructed by legal, or. should I say, legalistic, difficulties. Those difficulties should be overcome, and I am sure my hon. Friend the Undersecretary of State for Dominion Affairs is going to do all in his power to overcome them. It was purely by coincidence, that only this morning I had a letter from one of my own constituents, a woman who was betrayed by a man in the Royal Canadian Air Force. She actually obtained an affiliation order against him in the courts for 15s. a week. He has returned to America—he is an American citizen who was serving in the Canadian Air Force—and the affiliation order is now some £50 in arrears. This unfortunate woman is in great difficulties and has a baby. She is owed £50 by this


man who is living with his parents in Los Angeles, and nothing can be done about it, either with the American authorities or, as things are at present, apparently, with the Canadian authorities. I wished to say that brief word from this side of the House, to support the plea which the Noble Lord has made.

9.7 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: May I express my gratitude to my noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) for having raised this very important matter? I confine myself to one aspect only, and that is in regard to the facilities for these girls to raise their cases in the Canadian courts. I am going to address myself not so much to the Under-Secretary as to the Solicitor-General. I think we are most fortunate in having the presence of the hon. and learned Gentleman, because we are now dealing with abstruse legal points. Speaking as a layman, it seems to me that restitution in the Canadian courts is opposed today by almost insurmountable obstacles and the first of them is the question of passage to Canada. This is not easy to obtain in any case, and not easy to finance in the case of many of these wronged women. Here again I am addressing myself to the Solicitor-General. These cases rest on the possibility of cross-examination of the woman, and she should be able to appear in court to be cross-examined. Upon that, surely, must turn to a great extent the decision in these matters. I imagine evidence could be taken upon affidavit.

Mrs. Braddock: But the case is settled here, is it not?

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I am dealing with the cases where that is not so. An affidavit could be put in, but surely the decision of the court is strengthened inevitably by the impossibility of the presence of the girl in question for cross-examination. Many of them, as we all know, come from humble homes, and the question of cost must inevitably be something of a gamble.
I now come to the point raised by the hon. Lady the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock). Many of these cases have already been heard in this country, and an affiliation order has been made in Britain. The

point upon which I am in some doubt, and upon which I would much value the guidance of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General, is this. Where an affiliation order has been made in a court in this country, can some machinery be devised to meet the case put by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg), whereby that affiliation order made in a British court is enforceable in Canada? It seems to me that that is really the crux of the large majority of these cases—not all of them, but perhaps the large majority, and certainly a great number of them. If an affiliation order made in this country could be enforceable in Canada, that would meet the point made by the hon. Lady, and would certainly relieve the anxiety of many of us as regards a large number of these cases. But I am still concerned with the other aspect of this problem, and it is upon this that I think we would like some kind of reply. Where the injured girl's presence in Canada is necessary, if she is going to win, what machinery can be devised, first, to get her across the Atlantic to the hearing? Secondly, having got her there, the question of the cost must arise, and it is upon that matter that I myself am exercised.
I have not intervened in this Debate merely for the sake of making these observations. I also have had brought to my notice in my constituency some extremely painful cases of girls, the parents of whom are very well respected, and it has been a very sad affair for the parents. I am quite sure that hon. Members, on whatever benches they may sit, will be united in desiring to see some kind of solution to this problem. I know other hon. Members desire to speak. I merely wanted to put those particular points, and I have put them, as I say, to the hon. and learned Gentleman because I think they are matters which require some legal reply.

9.12 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Major Sir Frank Soskice): I would not have intervened in the Debate except for the fact that questions have just been addressed almost personally to me by the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite). Without having regard to anything which may be said by my hon. Friend the Undersecretary of State for the Dominions, who is to answer for the Government, the


answer which I would make to the questions which have been asked is as follows. A distinction must be drawn between those cases in which an order has already been made in this country, and those cases in which an order has not been made; and, in particular, cases in which the paternity of the child is disputed. I think one's general sense of justice does prompt one to this view, that where a person is alleged to be the father of a child of a particular girl, as a matter of justice to him if he really disputes it, he should have the girl brought forward in order that she can be cross examined and his case can be put. It does not, of course, always follow, because a girl alleges that a particular man is the father of her child, that he is the father. Therefore, in those cases it seems to me that there is a very real difficulty, as was indicated by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Earl Winterton: May I ask the Solicitor-General a question arising from that? When a case is brought in a British court, and the Canadian soldier has gone to Canada, is there any power under the existing law by -which the British court can require his attendance?

The Solicitor-General: So far as I know, the answer is in the negative. There is no way. I was just saying, when the Noble Lord asked me that question, that the class of case in which an order has already been made is entirely different. There again, speaking purely offhand and not having considered the matter, I should not think there would be insuperable difficulty in an order made here being enforced in another country.

9.14 p.m.

Mr. Logan: The House should be very grateful to the Noble Lord for having brought this matter forward. Everyone associated with a police court knows that this is not an isolated case but is one of hundreds. It is a difficulty arising out of the war. In normal times it was an occasional lapse. American and Canadian soldiers have come here, and respectable homes have opened their doors and given admission to these men. Very often acquaintance has been made with the daughter, there has been companionship and she has been betrayed.

It being a quarter past Nine o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn.'' —[Mr. Pearson.]

Mr. Logan: The result of the friendliness has been an obligation of the kind that would fall upon an Englishman, who would bear his responsibility. While in the Army there is no trouble about these soldiers, except the disgrace that has been caused and the liability established by the order of the court, but when they leave the Service, and go back to Canada, it is the same with them as with men of the African race, who live in hostels and have no habitation here. The soldiers go away, and then the same procedure has to be followed as in these black and white questions.
There is no reciprocity. If, out of today's discussion initiated by the noble Lord, a solution can be found for something which has been puzzling many of our courts for a long time, we shall be pleased. I hope that the Solicitor-General can move himself and see whether there can be reciprocal treatment with Canada. Where the paternity of the children has been established in the English court, the liability ought certainly to be carried into Canada. If that can be accomplished, we shall have done a useful service to the public.

Captain Blackburn: I would like to join with my hon. Friends in saying how grateful we are to the Noble Lord for raising this matter. I hope I may be forgiven for introducing a slightly different note. This matter raises the whole subject of illegitimate children. I hope that the general provisions of the National Insurance Bill which, will be introduced next year will make sure that mothers with illegitimate children—they are people with whom we all have the greatest possible sympathy and particularly in view of the fact that Christmas is nearly here—will be covered, as will all cases of that kind.
I should like to hammer that point home, as a lawyer who has been in the welfare department of the Home Office dealing with these cases. The legalistic points made by the Solicitor-General, although perfectly correct in law, are not those which commend themselves to anybody with a sense of justice. The law is that if you are a mother with a illegitimate


child you can obtain an affiliation order only if you will produce corroboration. It is not sufficient, as in the normal case, to go into court and say, "As the result of my connection with this man I had an illegitimate child." You have to give them proof and corroboration. I am sure that any lawyer, whether on these benches or on the benches opposite, knows perfectly well that that makes it inevitable that in a large number of cases it is quite impossible for mothers to prove their cases.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member is now advocating something which would involve legislation. He cannot do that in an Adjournment Debate.

Captain Blackburn: I am not advocating that at all, and I am very sorry if what I have said has given rise to a misapprehension. I am merely pointing out by way of illustration how difficult it is for the mother of an illegitimate child to prove her case against the man responsible. Every lawyer here knows perfectly well that I am justified in making those remarks. This is a matter of more importance, perhaps, than appears on the surface. In a world which is now a world of exaggerated nationalism, it may give rise to most unfortunate approaches to Canadians, Americans or whoever they may be. We want to see the British Commonwealth of Nations knit together, and to see the Americans knit together with ourselves, in brotherly love. Everyone knows perfectly well that cases of this kind are calculated to sow the seeds of discord. The only real solution of this problem lies in a radically new approach to the whole question of mothers of illegitimate children, and I hope that that may come about later on.
May I conclude with one further remark to the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, for whom many of us on these benches feel the greatest good will in view of the great work he did before this Parliament assembled? It is surely rather a remarkable thing that my hon. Friend there, a junior Minister representing in this House an extremely important office, has no discretionary funds whatsoever at his disposal. It reminds me a little of the situation in the Army, where a commanding officer has power almost of life and death over some 800 or 900 men, but is not allowed to

spend more than £5 without the consent of the War Office. I do feel that my hon. Friend ought to command a Fund which would enable him to deal with stupid and trivial matters of this kind which should not come before the House at all. He ought to have the money and be able to solve the problems on the spot.

Sir William Darling: Would that not involve legislation?

Captain Blackburn: No, I think it could be done without. I do hope that these observations may be considered in other quarters, and that my hon. Friend should be given a discretionary power which would make his path much easier in the cause which we all have in mind, namely seeing that the British Commonwealth of Nations does not merely remain in its existing state of accord, but is bound even more closely together without being endangered by influences such as arise from cases like this.

9.24 p.m.

Mrs. Braddock: I also am pleased that the Noble Lord has raised this question. It affects not only Canadians and Americans, but goes much further. There are many cases in this country, and particularly in the ports, where women have married foreigners and the men have now returned to their ports of origin, leaving no trace. I think the time has arrived when this matter should be discussed not merely on the Adjournment but in a very serious Debate on the Floor of the House. May I quote cases with which I am dealing at the moment? In Liverpool there were a tremendous number of Chinese seamen when the war broke out and their home ports were closed. The Maritime Agreement made it imperative that those men should be returned home as soon as their ports of origin were open.
They have been in Liverpool and other seaport towns for some four or five years. They have legally married Englishwomen, and these women have perhaps two or three children. Now that the ports of origin of these men are open, they are being compelled by the shipping companies to return to their ports of origin, the shipping companies having no further obligation to pay the men maintenance while they remain in port. The women who are left with two or three children have no possibility of getting any sort of


maintenance from the men they have married.
The time has arrived when some sort of international arrangement ought to be made to cover these cases. We shall have the same problem from other countries. There will be women left in other countries with children from British soldiers and sailors. We cannot expect anything else under wartime conditions. Some arrangement ought to be made internationally whereby the financial responsibility of maintenance of the children, whether legitimate or illegitimate, should be put upon the fathers. The most difficult thing about the whole problem is that these women are finding themselves compelled to apply for and receive public assistance. Respectable girls coming from respectable families, whose families find themselves not in a position to maintain the girls, are having to apply to the public assistance committees for the maintenance of themselves and their children until the children are old enough for the women to go out and seek work again.
This is a very great problem which does not relate only to Canada and America; it is a matter which ought to be fully discussed, and some Department ought to see whether an arrangement cannot be made whereby orders made through the British courts or the courts of other countries, when the men leave whatever country it may be, shall be effective and the maintenance orders collected either from this country or whatever other country it may be.

9.27 p.m.

Mr. Tiffany: As has been said by hon. Members who have spoken, this problem is rather wider than the matter brought up by the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winter-ton). A large number of United States troops have been billeted in my constituency, and the result has been that this problem has arisen in various ways. I will quote two cases. In the first case, there is no doubt whatever as to the paternity of the child. No affiliation order was sought, but an agreement was arrived at in consultation with a solicitor. The soldier has now returned to the United States, and the agreement is not being carried out in any way. In the other case a marriage was arranged, in consultation with military authorities, and

now it has turned out that the marriage was not legal, and that a bigamy was committed by the United States soldier. The soldier has now returned to his own country. This discussion has opened a very wide field indeed, but in spite of its wideness, I hope that some way will be found out of the difficulty. I want to emphasize that the cases which have come to my notice involve decent girls from decent homes. It is up to the House to do what it can to give protection to those girls and their families.

9.29 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Parker): We have had a very useful Debate, and I would like to join with other hon. Members in thanking the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) for having initiated the Debate, which has not only dealt with the question of Canadian troops but has been widened to cover a very wide field indeed. Dealing first with the wider issue, I much appreciate the points that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock). Having worked for three years in Liverpool on the Merseyside Survey in the past, I know a great deal about the problem of deserted families and the large number of cases where there is a mother with a great many children, the parentage of many of whom is very doubtful. That is a very wide problem. The hon. and gallant Member for King's Norton (Captain Blackburn) raised the general subject of legitimacy. I think that much of what has been said tonight will have to be dealt with by the Government as part of the general policy for facing the whole of this wide question.
I now turn to the rather narrow issue on which I can definitely speak for the Department—that raised by the Noble Lord. I would like to go into some detail in dealing with the difficult points in connection with this rather narrow issue in relation to children of Canadians or with regard to the liabilities of Canadians in this country.

Earl Winterton: Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman is going to convey to the Leader of the Government the strong feeling that there is that we ought, at some time, to discuss the wider question?

Mr. Parker: Certainly. I did not intend to suggest in my answer to the Noble Lord, when he put his question, that I thought it was an unimportant question. What I tried to suggest was, that the numbers were not large. We have been into that matter. We have not the full figures. The Canadian Government are making inquiries as to the full figures, but I can give figures with regard to the Army, and they are rather larger than was thought. With regard to affiliation orders, the total number of deductions of pay to meet affiliation orders is 446, and the total number of cases in which payment is still being made is 163, so that there is a balance of 283. In some of those cases the stoppage has been due to subsequent marriage or adoption and so on, but in many cases is due to the fact that a man discharged from the Forces is no longer meeting his obligations. There are thus a number of cases arising, apart altogether from those connected with the Canadian Air Force or with the Canadian Navy, of which we have not the numbers.
The problem falls under two heads. There is, first, the case of the woman who wishes to take proceedings against a man who is in Canada, for the purpose of establishing paternity of her child and securing an order for its maintenance. Hon. Members who, as magistrates, have some experience of affiliation proceedings of courts of summary jurisdiction in this country will know that such proceedings are often closely contested, and it is frequently a matter of considerable difficulty for the magistrates to arrive at a just decision. Ordinarily, the parties both appear in court and the evidence given by each side is subject to cross-examination by the other. An order adjudging a man to be the putative father of a bastard child and requiring him to pay for its maintenance continues, until the child reaches the age of 13, or, if the justices so direct, until the child reaches the age of 16. If the case is contested, a court in this country will not usually make an order unless the defendant has been brought before the court to answer the allegations made against him and has been given an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant and her witnesses.
If the complainant is in this country and the defendant is in Canada, there is no practicable means by which the con-

fronting of the parties can be secured, and in a matter of this kind it is very important that the court should be able to see the parties, observe their demeanour and how they give their evidence, in order to come to a just decision as to which, of the two sides is telling the truth. For these reasons, it is, I am afraid, impracticable to devise any workable scheme which would allow of a woman in this country taking proceedings in a court here against a man in Canada or taking proceedings in a Canadian court without herself appearing before that court. The difficulty is fully appreciated by the Canadian military authorities, and they have been very willing in cases where a woman contemplates such proceedings to delay the transfer of the soldier concerned overseas so that proceedings can be taken in this country while both parties are here.
The second type of case is that in which an order has been made in this country while both the parties are here, and the woman desires to enforce it. So long as the Canadian is a serving member of the Forces no difficulty arises. The Canadian military authorities do everything possible to help by making deductions from the man's pay of an appropriate amount, having regard to the terms of the order. If, however, a man has been discharged from the Forces the Canadian military authorities have naturally no further control over him.
The Noble Lord suggested that, in such cases, a deduction should be made from the man's discharge gratuity to meet payments under the Order. Consideration has been given to this suggestion, but it is understood that it is not practicable because, by Canadian law, the gratuity cannot be withheld or reduced in payment of a debt or any other claim. Any alteration in this respect would require legislation in Canada and could not be effected by Canadian Order in Council. Moreover, there would be practical difficulties about such a solution, arising from the fact that the gratuity is a lump sum payment, while payments under an affiliation order are continuing payments of so much a week.
As matters stand, therefore, the only remedy for a woman in this country who wishes to enforce an order of an English court against a man in Canada who has been discharged from the Canadian


Forces is to take proceedings in the Canadian courts, and, in most cases, this is not a practicable remedy. Consideration has been given to the question whether it would be possible to make any arrangements with Canada for the reciprocal enforcement in one country of affiliation orders made in the other. Hon. Members may be aware that there is already on the Statute Book an Act of 1920—the Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement) Act—under which it is possible for reciprocal arrangements to be made between this country and other parts of the Commonwealth and Empire for the enforcement in one part of the Commonwealth of wife maintenance orders made in another, and arrangements of this kind have been made with Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, who have all passed the necessary domestic legislation to bring the Act of 1920 into operation. It has not. however, been possible to make such arrangements with Canada, since the necessary legislation has not been passed by the Canadian Parliament. Moreover, Canadians tell us that such legislation would have to be passed through each of the several Provincial Parliaments in Canada.
The Act of 1920 does not apply to affiliation orders, but, if Canada were to adopt the scheme of the Act and pass the necessary legislation to bring it into operation, the question of extending the Act of 1920 to affiliation orders could be considered. It will be clear, however, from what I have said, that this solution of the problem cannot be envisaged for some time to come and must depend upon the decision of the Canadian authorities on the whole question whether they will introduce such legislation. It is possible, as a long term solution, but it will not help those women who are in difficulties at the present time.
The Noble Lord also suggested that proceedings might be taken in Canada by the United Kingdom High Commissioner on behalf of a woman in this country. This would be an entirely new departure, and would, in itself, I believe, require legislation in Canada. Moreover, it would suffer from the disadvantage that applications would have to be made as arrears accumulated, perhaps from week to week and from month to month. A procedure of this kind has no advantages over the general scheme of the Act of 1920, under which an order, once made in this country, is enforced in the Dominion concerned in exactly the same way as if the Order had been made in the Dominion, and I see no reason to think that the difficulties in the way of legislation on the lines suggested would be any less than those in the way of legislation with a view to the adoption in Canada of the Act of 1920. I am afraid, therefore, that this suggestion would not provide any immediate practical remedy.
There is, however, a good deal of feeling in the country, as well as in this House, that something ought to be done to meet this very difficult situation. I understand that the Canadian authorities fully appreciate the seriousness of the position, and the feeling that there is in this country about the matter. We, in the Dominions Office, have fully gone into the whole position and we also feel strongly on the matter. I can say that we will examine the matter with the Canadian authorities. We are already doing so, and we will do our very best to see what action can be taken to deal with the whole question. More than that, I am afraid, I cannot say at the moment.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-one Minutes to Ten o'Clock.